^ 

^ 

r£ 

•^ 

.2 

-^ 

Q. 

4 

J5 

-^-^ 

IE 

; 

i^          ^ 

Q. 

♦^ 

i.^. 

s,     ^ 

o 

, 

t^ 

$ 

^      S 

0) 

c 

- 

w         o 

bj) 

• 

§    i 

3 

^ 

^"^ 

^ 

£ 

.^ 

O                M 

<0 

"kJ 

•g       rt 

t/-) 

■g- 

^ 

^ 

^ 

« 

-D 

c 

s 

^ 

CO 

0) 

1 

^ 

al 

s 

C/ 

^^S 

^ 

/(D5 


o^ 


u 


c,  I 


// 


^^^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/appealtocandidofOOsli 


AN    APPEAL 

TO  THE 

CANDID  OF  ALL  DENOMINATIONS  t 

IN  WHICH  THE 

OBLIGATION,  SUB.JECTS,  AND  MODE  OF 
BAPTISM 

ARE    DISCUSSED 

BY  REV.  HENRY  SLICER, 

IN  ANSWER   TO  THE 

REV.  W.  F.  BROADDUS,  OF  VIRGINIA,  AND  OTHERS. 

WITH 

A   FURTHER    APPEAL, 

IN  ANSWER  TO 

MR.  BROADDUS'S  LETTERS. 


THIRD   EDITION, 

REVISED    BY  THE    EDITOR. 


I  speak  as  unlo  wise  men  ;  judge  ye  what  I  say. — 1  Cor.  x,  15. 
Hearken  to  me  ;  I  also  will  sliovv"  mine  opinion. — Job  xxxii,  10. 


NEW-YORK  : 

PUBLISHED  BY  GEORGE  LANE, 

For  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  the  Conference  Office, 
200  Mulberry-street. 

/.  Collord,  Printer. 
1841, 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congres?,  in  the  year  1841, 
by  George  Lane,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court 
of  the  Southern  District  of  New-Yorii. 


OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND  M^^ 

OP  '"^       ^^ 

BAPTISM. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 

When  an  individual  presents  himself  in  the 
character  "of  a  controversial  writer,  a  proper 
respect  for  public  opinion  requires  that  he  state 
the  reasons  which  have  induced  him  to  take 
such  an  attitude. 

The  following  pages  have  not  been  called 
forth  by  a  fondness  for  writing, — nor  from  the 
want  of  other  important  matters  with  which  to 
occupy  the  writer's  time, — but  by  the  solicita- 
tions of  friends ;  and  by  what  he  at  least  con- 
siders an  imperious  call  of  duty,  in  view  of  the 
responsible  relation  which  he  sustains  to  the 
people  of  the  Potomac  district. 

There  are  times  when  silence  may  become 
treason;  and  error,  unexposed,  may  be  passed 
off  for  valid  truth. 

Until  lately,  I  have  had  no  intention  to  write 
on  the  subject  of  Christian  baptism ;  and  even 
now  I  should  not  have  written — so  numerous 


4  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

and  pressing  are  my  engagements — could  I 
have  persuaded  myself  that  the  circulation  of 
any  one  of  the  excellent  tracts  that  have  been 
■written  by  others  would  have  met  our  peculiar 
circumstances  in  relation  to  this  subject. 

With  a  district  two  hundred  miles  in  length  ; 
containing  six  or  seven  thousand  church  mem- 
bers ;  with  fifty-two  large  meetings  to  attend 
in  about  forty-eight  weeks,  and  a  travel  of 
about  two  thousand  five  hundred  miles  to  per- 
form in  the  same  time  ;  I  considered  that  I  had 
no  time  to  devote  to  writing  on  this  subject^ 
without  oppressing  myself,  or  neglecting  mat- 
ters having  a  prior  claim  upon  me,  and  possess- 
ing a  paramount  importance.  The  former  I  have 
done,  in  view  of  the  necessity  laid  upon  me,  in 
order  to  avoid  the  latter.  At  different  times  and 
in  several  places,  at  the  instance  of  my  friends, 
I  have  been  led  to  make  remarks  on  the  obliga- 
tion, mode,  and  subjects  of  baptism  ;  and  have 
administered  the  ordinance  to  hundreds  of  adults 
"^  of  all  ages,  from  the  sire  of  seventy,  down  to 
the  youth;  as  well  as  to  infants.  With  the 
Baptists,  as  a  people,  we  have  had  no  quarrel, 
and  for  many  of  them  we  have  had,  and  do  still 
entertain,  more  than  mere  respect;  and  if  our 
views,  as  expressed  in  the  following  pages, 
should  be  thought  to  be  expressed  in  language 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  5 

too  severe,  we  have  only  to  say,  that  where  we 
have  seemed  in  the  least  caustic,  it  was  because 
we  considered  the  case  required  it. 

We  have  no  interests  that  we  have  not  laid 
at  the  feet  of  truth ;  and  none  that  we  are  not 
willing  to  peril  in  its  defence.  And  we  wish 
it  distinctly  understood,  that  we  take  the  whole 
responsibility  of  the  views  herein  expressed. 

We  have  not  sought  to  make  proselytes  to  a 
party;  nor  have  we  even  interfered  with  any 
who  have  been  awakened  at  Baptist  meetings  ; 
we  have  acted  soleiy  on  the  defensive,  in  order 
to  save  our  people  from  perplexity,  and  prevent 
others  from  "  bereaving  us  of  our  children." 

Some  eighteen  months  ago,  I  found  a  pam- 
phlet circulating  in  the  community,  written  by 
Elder  W.  F.  Broaddus,  entitled,  "  Strictures  oa 
Mr.  Dieffenbacher's  doctrine  of  water  baptism, 
infant  baptism,"  &c. 

I  read  it,  and  found  a  good  deal  of  ridicule 
and  sophistry  employed  against  those  who  hold 
infant  baptism,  and  baptism  by  sprinkling  ox 
pouring.  I  took  no  public  notice  of  it,  until  the 
tenth  day  of  last  November,  when  at  Upper- 
ville,  Va.,  by  request,  I  delivered  an  argument 
on  baptism,  in  which  I  replied  to  all  the  matter 
contained  in  the  strictures  which  I  thought  en- 
titled to  notice ;  but,  lest  any  offence  should  be 


6  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

taken,  I  purposely  avoided  the  mention  of  Mr. 
B.'s  name. 

After  I  had  administered  the  ordinance  to 
twenty-three  adults  and  some  infants,  as  I  pre- 
ferred to  discuss  the  subject  pubhcly,  I  made  a 
general  offer  to  debate  the  matter  with  any  gen- 
tleman, minister  or  layman,  within  the  bounds 
of  my  district,  at  any  time  and  place  which 
might  be  appointed  for  that  purpose.  A  Bap- 
tist minister  present  declined  the  offer  publicly, 
in  the  presence  of  about  one  thousand  persons. 
Mr.  Broaddus  knew  of  what  had  passed,  but  did 
not  see  proper  to  accept  the  offer. 

He,  however,  preached  a  sermon  on  the  same 
subject  in  the  same  village  about  three  weeks 
afterward,  which  sermon  he  published  after  the 
lapse  of  about  four  or  five  months.  I  accident- 
ally heard  of  his  intention  to  preach,  two  days 
before  the  time,  and  that  a  rumour,  or  report, 
was  in  circulation  through  the  neighbourhood 
by  his  friends,  that  I  was  expected  to  be  present 
on^the  occasion.  I  wrote  immediately  to  Up- 
perville,  informing  my  friends  that  I  had  re- 
ceived no  notice  of  the  appointment  from  Mr. 
B.,  and  in  the  letter  renewed  the  offer  to  de- 
bate the  matter,  which  letter  was  handed  him, 
by  a  friend  of  mine,  before  he  preached. 

About  three  days  after  he  delivered  that  ser- 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  7 

mon,  I  received  a  letter  from  him,  requesting 
me  to  publish  my  sermon,  and  very  kindly 
offering  to  review  it,  in  case  I  should  publish ; 
and  oifered  as  an  inducement  to  me,  the  follow- 
ing language :  "  Controversies,  when  properly 
conducted,  must  always  do  good." 

I  took  no  notice  of  the  letter,  because  I  con- 
sidered it  a  fair  decline  of  my  offer ;  and  be- 
cause I  have  always  believed  that  the  subject 
could  be  brought  home  to  those  who  are  least 
informed  on  the  subject,  (and  of  consequence 
most  liable  to  be  misled,)  better  by  an  oral  than 
a  written  argument,  and  at  less  expense  to  the 
community.  In  his  "  Note  to  the  reader,"  and 
in  the  commencement  of  his  sermon,  he  has 
used  my  name,  and  informs  the  reader  that  his 
discourse  was  occasioned  "  by  the  excitement''^ 
which  my  sermon  ''''produced  in  the  village  and 
neighbourhood,'^  and  that  I  had  made  "  an  at- 
tempt to  prove  that  infant  sprinkling  was  an 
ordinance  of  the  New  Testament." 

The  candid  reader  will  be  able  to  judge  how 
far  I  have  succeeded  in  the  ^^  attempt,'^  in  the 
following  pages.  I  think  it  very  likely  that  the 
ffty-nine  adults  baptized  by  pouring  in  that  place 
and  its  vicinity,  within  the  few  weeks  previous, 
gave  that  gentleman  more  uneasiness  than  the 
^^ attempt''''  at  proving  "infant  sprinkling." 


8  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

He  takes  for  granted  that  he  is  right  in  his 
"  understanding  and  practice"  of  the  ordinance 
— and  that  /  am  wrong;  and  he  sets  out  to 
"  counteract  the  wrong  impressions'''  that  I  may 
have  made.  This  looks  a  little  like  begging 
the  question. 

As  Mr.  B.  was  so  kind  as  to  offer  to  be  rc- 
viewer  for  me,  and  was  so  kind  as  to  write 
"  strictures"  for  Mr.  D.,  I  suppose  he,  least  of 
all,  will  complain  of  my  performing  the  like 
kind  office  for  him;  as  one  "good  turn  deserves 
another" — and  I  accept  on  his  part  the  loill  for 
the  deed. 

If  he  should  think  proper  to  write  again,  and 
should  produce  any  arguments  that  I  have  not 
replied  to  in  these  pages,  I  shall  answer  him  in 
some  way.  But  I  give  the  reader  notice  that 
/  shall  not  wi'ite  again,  to  answer  arguments,  or 
sophistry,  that  I  have  already  replied  to. 

In  the  discussion  1  have  (so  far  as  I  knew 
them)  taken  up  all  the  arguments  used  by  the 
Baptists,  and  have  not  confined  myself  to  Mr. 
B.'s  "  sermon"  and  "  strictures"  alone. 

While  /  am  fully  convinced  that  the  Baptists, 
as  a  denomination,  had  their  rise  in  Germany 
in  1521  or  1522,  under  Nicholas  Stork,  Munt- 
zer,  John  of  Leyden,  Knipperdoling,  and  others, 
I  have  forborne  giving  an  account  of  them,  as 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  9 

it  is  found  in  Robinson's  Charles  V.,  and  in  a 
View  of  All  Religions,  by  Ross,  published  in 
London,  1664  ;  as  I  know  the  matter  to  be  very- 
offensive  to  our  Baptist  friends  ;  also  believing 
it  to  be  unrighteous  to  attribute  the  "  iniquities 
of  the  fathers  to  the  children."  Although  Mr. 
B.  has  laboured  hard  to  establish  the  charge  of 
lieresy  against  the  founder  of  Methodism,  in  the 
matter  of  baptismal  regeneration,  a  doctrine  which 
he  must  have  known  that  wise  and  good  man  no 
more  held  than  he  believed  that  "  Thomas  Stork 
held  communion  with  God,  by  means  of  an 
angel,"  yet  /  loill  not  retaliate  by  recounting 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  German  Ana- 
baptists. 

Here  I  take  leave  of  this  subject,  praying  that 
God  may  keep  us  from  the  by-ways  of  error, 
and  lead  us  into  the  way  of  truth. 

HENRY  SLICER. 
Alexandria,  October  7,  1835. 


10  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 

When  the  Appeal  was  first  put  to  press,  the 
author  was  not  aware  that  the  demand  for  the 
work  would  be  more  than  to  justify  the  issuing 
of  a  small  edition ;  accordingly,  a  thousand 
copies  were  issued,  nearly  all  of  which  were 
disposed  of  in  a  few  weeks,  and  another  edition 
was  demanded,  with  a  request  that  it  should  be 
enlarged  in  one  or  two  parts. 

The  reception  with  which  it  met  from  the 
candid  and  intelligent  of  different  denomina- 
tions, not  excepting  the  Baptists,  (for  I  never 
heard  of  its  giving  much  offence  to  any  one 
except  Mr.  B.,)  and  the  assurances  of  its  use- 
fulness which  reached  me  from  different  parts 
of  the  country,  convinced  me  of  the  propriety 
of  revising  and  enlarging  the  work,  and  publish- 
ing a  second  edition.  But  as  I  wished  to  know 
what  course  Mr.  Broaddus  would  take  in  the 
matter,  it  was  judged  best  to  defer  the  publica- 
tion of  a  future  edition,  until  he  should  either 
reply,  or  decline  any  further  controversy  on  the 
subject.  After  waiting  some  time  for  an  answer, 
I  learned,  through  a  friend,  that  he  would  reply 
about  Christmas ;  I  looked  in  vain  to  that  period 
for  an  answer,  for  it  passed,  and  also  the  long 


MODE  OF   BAPTISM.  11 

month  of  January,  and  the  cold  month  of  Feb- 
ruary, and  the  winds  of  March,  and  the  showers 
of  April,  all  passed,  and  no  answer  came  ;  and 
in  the  month  of  June,  while  I  was  just  aboiit  to 
conclude  that  Mr.  B.  had  abandoned  the  idea 
of  answering,  a  friend  informed  me  that  the 
reply  was  then  in  press.  I  then  began  to  rea- 
son in  my  own  mind,  in  order,  if  possible,  to 
lind  out  what  could  have  detained  the  answer 
for  seven  long  months,  and  upon  reflection  I 
recollected  that  the  Upperville  sermon,  although 
delivered  the  sabbath  before  winter,  was  not 
issued  from  the  press  until  the  ice  and  snow  of 
the  cold  season  had  all  melted,  and  the  singing 
of  birds  was  heard  in  the  land ;  and  what  makes 
this  the  more  remarkable  is,  the  fact  that  his 
note  to  the  reader  is  dated  December,  1834  : — 
has  this  all  been  the  replt  of  accident?  or  does 
not  Mr.  Broaddus  know^  that  an  argument  for 
immersion  stands  but  little  chance  of  exerting 
a  proselyting  influence  in  mid-winter?  But  be 
this  as  it  may,  one  would  think  that  if  "he 
found  (as  he  says  he  did)  that  my  bold  asser- 
tions were  likely  to  pass  for  sound  argument 
with  some,  who  lacked  either  capacity  or  lei- 
sure to  examine  for  themselves ;  while  the  se- 
rious imputations  I  had  cast  upon  his  motives 
were  likely  to  awaken  suspicions  in  a  com- 


12  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

munity  but  little  acquainted  with  him,  unfavour- 
able to  his  reputation ;"  surely  he  should  have 
hastened  to  the  fescue  of  his  favourite  theory 
from  the  hands  of  those  "  bold  assertions,"  and 
from  those  ."  who  lacked  capacity  or  leisure  to 
examine  for  themselves,"  and  especially  to  have 
silenced  all  "  suspicion  unfavourable  to  his 
reputation  ;"  and  more  especially,  "  as  he  soon 
found  that  some  of  my  readers  were  inclined  to 
attribute  his  silence  to  a  consciousness  of  guilt," 
page  59.  And  yet,  strange  to  tell,  this  gentle- 
man defers  his  answer  for  seven  months.  Per- 
haps he  thought  that  the  impression  that  my 
^^hold  assertions*^  made  last  fall,  with  regard  to 
the  ordinance,  would,  with  the  aid  of  a  little 
time,  become  erased  from  the  minds  of  the 
good  people  of  Virginia,  who  were  destitute  of 
^^  capacity  or  leisure  to  examine  for  themselves" 
— and  that  he  could  repeat  over  the  arguments, 
I  will  not  say  "  bold  assertions,"  of  his  stric- 
tures and  sermon,  and  utter  his  complaints  long 
and  loud,  about  being  "  misquoted,"  "  misrepre- 
sented," his  "  motives  impugned,"  "  personal 
defamation,"  &c.,  &:c.,  and  thus  hide  himself  in 
the  smoke  of  his  own  raising.  And  if  he  did 
not  succeed  in  slaying  "  Goliath,"  he  would  at 
least  show  the  community  that, 

"Although  vanquished,  he  can  argue  still." 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  13 

I  promised  the  candid  reader  not  to  answer 
"  arguments  or  sophistry  that  I  had  already  re- 
plied to."  I  shall,  in  a  Further  Appeal,  how- 
ever, take  such  notice  of  Mr.  B.'s  twenty-one 
letters  as  I  may  think  them  entitled  to. 

I  confess  I  expected  when  I  wrote  that  Mr. 
B.  would  reply,  for  I  knew  that  those  who  have 
vanity  enough  to  compare  themselves  to  the 
warrior  David,  page  42,  would  make  a  show  of 
fight,  although  there  might  be,  in  reality,  neither 
a  sling  in  his  hand,  nor  a  '■''smooth  stone  left  in 
the  shepherd'' s  bag;^^  they  would  fancy,  too,  that 
they  heard  the  death-gToan  of  the  giant,  and 
that  they  had  given  his  head  to  the  host  of 
Israel,  and  his  carcass  to  the  fowls  of  heaven — 
to  the  vultures,  of  course. 

But  in  all  seriousness,  (speaking  without  a 
figure,)  I  was  surprised  that  the  gentleman 
should  show  so  much  morbid  sensibility,  and 
that  he  should  take  up  so  much  of  his  letters 
in  attempts  to  excite  the  sympathy  of  the  public 
for  the  much  injured  man.  Could  not  the  can- 
did reader  judge  whether  my  weapons  were 
those  of  ^'personal  d^efamation"  and  ^'•sarcasm," 
or  those  of  Scriptural  argument  and  sober  rea- 
son ?  Did  Mr.  B.  fear  that  the  candid  reader 
had  not  "  capacity"  to  see  that  I  was  "  almost 
a  stranger  to  the  use  of  all  weapons,  except 


14  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

sarcasm  and  personal  defamation, ^^  that  it  became 
necessary,  in  his  "  note  to  the  reader,"  to  inform 
him  of  it  ?  I  sought  (as  far  as  the  nature  of  the 
case  would  admit)  to  use  ^'' soft  words'*^  and 
^^hard  arguments.''^  If,  however,  I  had  known 
that  Mr.  B.  was  "«  man  of"  extra-^^  ordinary 
sensibility,"  I  might  have  used  "  soft  arguments" 
and  ^'■hard  words,"  which  might  have  been  more 
acceptable  to  the  gentleman  on  several  accounts, 
for  certainly  the  intelligent  reader  will  see  that 
Mr.  B.  is  no  novice  in  those  at  the  present,  and 
with  a  little  more  practice  he  might  become  an 
adept  both  in  the  use  of  "  soft  arguments"  and 
^'•hard  words." 

But  I  will  not  rail,  but  leave  the  gentleman 
to  digest  his  own  spleen. 

I  shall  not  promise  to  demonstrate  any  thing, 
either  in  regard  to  my  own  innocence  or  the 
goodness  of  my  cause — I  shall  leave  to  the 
candid  reader  the  task  of  making  up  a  judg- 
ment for  himself,  both  with  regard  to  the  sub- 
ject and  the  writer.  It  may  have  been  as  well 
for  Mr.  B.  to  put  a  promise  in  his  "note  to 
the  reader"  that  he  will  demonstrate  his  "  own 
innocence,"  and  that  my  "  views  of  baptism  are 
altogether  without  foundation  in  the  word  of 
God" — as  it  is  possible  many  of  his  readers 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  15 

may  not  be  able  to  see  the  demonstration  of 
either  in  the  body  of  his  loork. 

Having  carefully  read  Mr.  B.'s  letters,  I  am 
more  than  ever  convinced  that  the  views  of 
baptism  held  by  our  Baptist  friends  cannot  be 
maintained. 

All  I  ask  of  you,  intelligent  reader,  is  a  can- 
did examination  of  this  revised  and  enlarged 
"Appeal,"  with  the  "Further  Appeal,"  and  I 
shall  have  no  anxiety  for  the  issue.  "  I  speak 
as  unto  wise  men — ^j.udge  ye  what  I  say." 

HENRY  SLICER. 
Georgetown^  D.  C,  July,  1836. 


OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND  M065. 


"    -t 


BAPTISM. 


In  calling  public  attention  to  the  subject  of 
Christian  baptism,  Ave  wish  to  declare  plainly 
and  fully  our  views,  without  intending  to  offend 
any;  and  not  expecting  to  give  offence  to  the 
liberal  and  candid,  who,  while  they  claim  the 
right  to  think,  and  according  to  their  best  light 
entertain  and  express  their  opinions,  accord  to 
others  cordially  the  same  which  they  claim  for 
themselves. 

In  the  arguments  which  we  may  adduce  on 
the  subject,  it  is  not  our  design  so  much  to  prove 
that  others  are  not  right,  as  to  prove  that  we  are 
not  wrong. 

And  if,  when  we  have  gone  through  the  argu- 
ment, we  shall  have  failed  to  convince  you  that 
ours  is  the  "  more  excellent  way,"  we  shall  not 
think  you  any  the  worse  Christians,  unless,  in 
the  spirit  of  bigotry,  you  should  unchristian 
others  who  may  not  agree  with  you  in  their 
doctrines  and  usages.  For  we  conceive  that 
no  views  of  doctrine,  or  of  the  ordinances,  how- 
ever correct,  can  save  any  man,  unless  he  be 
spiritually  regenerated.  For  "  neither  circum- 
2 


18  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

cision  availeth  any  thing,  nor  imcircumcision, 
but  a  neio  creature^ 

Many  who  have  been  as  orthodox  as  an 
apostle,  and  have  received  the  rite  of  baptism, 
have  proved  themselves  to  be  but  "  baptized 
infidels,  washed  to  fouler  stains." 

Having  said  thus  much,  we  shall  proceed  to 
speak, 

First,  of  the  obligation  and  perpetuity — 

Secondly,  of  the  subjects — 

And  thirdly,  of  the  mode  of  baptism. 

THE    OBLIGATION    AND    PERPETUITY    OF    CHRIS- 
TIAN   BAPTISM. 

On  this  part  of  the  subject  we  and  our  Baptist 
friends  have  no  controversy — as  Ave  agree  alike 
to  assert  and  maintain  the  obligation  of  the 
ordinance.  But  there  have  been  many,  bearing 
the  name  of  Christ,  who  look  upon  the  subject 
with  indifierence,  and  others  who  argue  against 
it,  saying  that  it  is  a  ^^  carnal  ordinance^''  and 
ought  long  since  to  have  become  extinct  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  And  in  support  of  their  views 
they  adduce  several  passages  of  Scripture,  and 
maintain  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  super- 
sedes the  necessity  of  water  baptism.  The 
views  of  such  have  grown,  in  part,  out  of  the 
fact  that  our  Baptist  friends  generally  have 
confounded  Christian  baptism  with  the  baptism 
of  John,  whereas  the  two  should  be  considered 
entirely  distinct,  as  we  hope  to  be  able  to  show 
hereafter.     The  two  passages  on  which  such 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  19 

as  deny  the  obligation  of  baptism  mainly  rely 
are  to  be  found,  John  iii,  30,  "  He  must  in- 
crease, but  I  must  decrease  ;"  and  1  Cor.  i,  17, 
"  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
preach  the  gospel."  They  conclude  from  the 
passage  in  John,  that  as  he  was  to  decrease  as 
Christ  increased,  therefore  baptism  ought  to 
have  ceased  in  the  church  centuries  since. 
The  conclusion  is  good  from  the  premises,  but 
the  premises  are  false,  and  the  conclusion  is 
therefore  good  for  nothing ;  for  in  the  same 
chapter  you  will  find  John's  disciples  informing 
him  that  Christ  was  baptizing,  and  all  men  were 
flacking  to  him ;  and  John  said,  "  I  am  not  the 
Christ."  "  I  came  to  bear  witness  of  him."  "  He 
must  increase,  I  must  decrease."  Consequently 
we  hear  nothing  of  John's  baptism  after  he  was 
beheaded,  only  that  St.  Paul  rebaptized  some  at 
Ephesus  who  had  previously  received  John's 
baptism.  See  Acts  xix,  1-7.  John  received  a 
temporary  commission  to  herald  the  approach 
of  the  Messiah  and  his  kingdom  ;  and  baptizing 
the  people  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
taught  them  to  believe  on  him  who  was  to 
come  ; — i.  e.,  on  Christ  Jesus.  And  so  little 
were  the  disciples  at  Ephesus  acquainted  with 
Christianity  in  its  doctrines  or  spirit,  that  they 
had  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  was 
any  Holy  Ghost. 

We  request  you  to  refer  to  the  passage  and 
read  it  attentively,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
quote  it  again  in  the  course  of  the  argument. 
The  view  we  have  given  of  John's  baptism  we 


20  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

are  happy  to  find  supported  by  that  able  and 
distinguished  minister  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
Robert  Hall,  of  England.  See  liis  Works,  vol.  i, 
p.  372.  His  words  are,  "  No  rite  celebrated 
during  the  ministry  of  John  is  entitled  to  a 
place  among  Christian  sacraments."  It  is  to  be 
regretted,  however,  that  most  of  his  less  intel- 
ligent brethren  differ  with  Mr.  Hall  in  opinion. 
Some  of  them  have  maintained  from  the  pulpit, 
and  others  from  the  press,  that  John's  was 
Christian  baptism.  On  this  point  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Broaddus  seems  not,  as  yet,  to  have  made  up 
an  opinion.     See  sermon,  p.  34. 

The  other  passage  (quoted  from  Corinthians) 
will  be  found,  upon  examination,  not  to  weigh 
against  the  obligation  of  the  ordinance.  A  fac- 
tion had  arisen  in  the  church  at  Corinth,  the 
apostle  was  informed  that  they  had  raised  par- 
ties, and  had  used  his  name,  and  the  names  of 
his  friends  Apollos  and  Cephas.  He  writes 
them  a  severe  letter,  remonstrating  against  their 
course,  and  asks,  "  Is  Christ  divided?  Was  Paul 
crucified  for  you  ?  or  M-ere  ye  baptized  in  the 
name  of  Paul  ?  I  thank  God  that  /  baptized 
none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gains."  And 
why  ?  He  immediately  assigns  the  reason,  "  Lest 
any  should  say  that  I  had  baptized  in  mine  own 
name."  "  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize," 
&c. ;  i.  e.,  my  main  and  most  important  business 
is  to  preach  the  gospel.  He  did  baptize  some, 
as  you  learn  from  the  context ;  and  it  is  certain 
that  he  baptized  others,  in  other  places,  as  the 
twelve   disciples  at  Ephesus,  &;c.     But  as  a 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  21 

wise  master  builder,  he  had  learned  to  give  to 
things  severally  the  importance  due  to  them. 

Having  thus  shown  that  these  texts  lie  not 
against  the  obligation  of  the  ordinance,  we 
must  remark,  that  as  Christ  gave  a  command 
to  the  apostles,  after  his  resurrection,  to  dis- 
ciple all  nations,  by  baptizing  and  teaching 
them ;  with  the  promise  to  be  with  them  to  the 
end  of  the  w^orld ;  and  as  that  command  has 
neither  been  revoked  nor  complied  with  to  its 
full  extent,  the  obligation  still  rests  upon  the 
ministry  to  administer  the  rite,  and  upon  the 
nations  to  submit  to  it.  And  furthermore,  when 
the  apostles  went  forth  in  obedience  to  the 
above  command,  whenever  and  wherever  the 
word  took  effect  upon  the  hearers,  and  they 
were  willing  to  receive  Christ,  the  apostles 
dedicated  them,  if  Jews,  to  Jesus,  as  the  true 
Messiah,  and,  if  Gentiles,  to  the  true  God — 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  three 
thousand  cried  out,  "  Men  and  brethren,  what 
shall  we  do  ?"  (although,  in  all  probability, 
many  of  them  had  been  baptized  by  John,) 
Peter  said,  "  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one 
of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

And  when  Peter  opened  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  the  Gentiles,  in  the  house  of  Corne- 
lius, as  he  had  done  to  the  Jews  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  while  he  was  speaking,  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  the  conorregation.     "  Then  an- 


22  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

svvered  Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  re- 
ceived  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  we  ?  And  he 
commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord,"  Acts  x,  44-48.  Will  any  one,  in 
view  of  this' evidence,  still  assert  that  water 
baptism  is  not  obligatory?  Those  who  main- 
tain that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  supersedes 
the  necessity  of  the  baptism  of  water  differ  in 
judgment  with  the  apostle  Peter.  And  you, 
my  reader,  can  judge  whose  opinion  is  entitled 
to  most  deference ;  the  inspired  apostles,  who 
received  the  command  at  the  mouth  of  Christ, 
or  one,  or  many  at  this  late  period,  who  are  not 
under  the  infallible  inspiration  of  the  Spirit;  as 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  those  who  deny 
the  obligation  of  baptism  disagree  among  them- 
selves upon  the  most  important  points  in  Chris- 
tian theology. 

It  will  be  in  vain  to  say  that  the  ordinance 
has  been  abused,  by  having  too  much  stress 
laid  upon  it;  for  the  abuse  of  a  good  thing  is 
not  a  valid  argument  against  its  use.  "  I  speak 
as  unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

ON   THE   SUBJECTS   OF   BAPTISM. 

We  shall  now  present  for  your  consideration 
and  judgment  our  views  in  ansioer  to  the  question, 
who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  the  ordinance? 

Before  I  enter  fully  into  this  part  of  the  sub- 
ject, I  beg  your  serious  and  candid  attention 
to  two  important  preliminary  considerations, 
namely,  that  as  there  is  but  one  true  God  and 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  23 

one  true  faith,  so  this  true  God  has  never  had 
more  than  one  church  in  the  world,  from  the 
day  that  pious  Abel  by  faith  offered  an  accept- 
able sacrifice,  to  the  present  hour.  1  am  aware 
that  this  principle  has  been  disputed,  but  I  take 
my  firm  stand  upon  the  truth  of  God,  and  shall 
maintain  this  view,  without  fear  of  successful 
contradiction.  In  the  sermon  of  Mr.  B.,  p.  14, 
he  says,  "  The  truth  is,  there  never  was  a  visible 
church  of  Christ  on  earth,  until  he  came  and 
established  it  himself."  There  was  a  visible 
church  of  Christ  before  his  coming  as  really  as 
there  has  been  since ;  as  is  evident  from  Acts- 
vii,  38,  "  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in 
the  WILDERNESS  with  the  angel," — compared, 
with  Exodus  xxiii,  20,  21,  "  Behold  I  send  an 
ANGEL  before  thee,  &c.,  provoke  him  not,  for 
he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions," — com- 
pared with  1  Cor.  X,  4  and  9,  "And  did  all  drink 
the  same  spiritual  drink  ;  for  they  drank  of  that 
spiritual  rock  that  followed  them ;  and  that  rock 
was  Christ."  "  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ, 
as  some  of  them  also  tempted,  and  were  de- 
stroyed of  serpents."  It  is  clear  from  these 
passages,  1st,  that  God  had  a  church  in  the 
wilderness ;  2dly,  that  the  angel  spolcen  of  as 
having  power  to  pardon  sin  was  Christ ;  3dly, 
that  he  was  with  the  church;  4thly,  that  him 
they  tempted,  and  fell  under  his  retributive  ad- 
ministration. 

In  all  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  the  province  of  reading  men's 
hearts  is  ascribed  to  God  alone,  and  conse- 


24  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

quently  he  alone  can  tell  with  infallible  cer- 
tainty who  are,  and  who  are  not,  members  of 
the  i?ivisible  church  of  God.  But,  so  far  as 
man  can  judge  from  those  actions  which  are 
an  index  to  the  hearts  of  men,  we  should  con- 
clude that  such  as  Zachariah  and  Elizabeth, 
Simeon  and  Anna,  under  the  Jewish  economy, 
were  really  members,  constituting  a  visible 
church;  especially  as  we  have  the  testimony 
of  God  to  their  guileless  and  Scriptural  piety. 
If  Mr.  B.  means  to  say  that  no  church  is  a 
visible  church  that  has  unworthy  members  in  it, 
then,  indeed,  there  never  was  a  visible  church 
of  Christ  on  earth,  even  in  the  brightest  period 
of  the  church's  history.  Was  the  church  in  the 
days  of  the  apostles  a  visible  church  of  Christ, 
any  more  than  the  Jewish  church  had  been, 
when  among  the  baptized  were  seen  Judas, 
Demas,  Simon  Magus,  and  others  ?  But  if  Mr. 
B.  means  to  say  that  the  church  of  God  and  the 
church  of  Christ  were  tvw,  then  we  ask  how  he 
can  maintain  such  a  view,  without  denying  the 
unity  of  the  Godhead,  or  the  essential  divinity 
of  Christ  ?  There  was  one  church  purchased 
by  the  blood  of  Christ :  "  Feed  the  church  of 
God,  which  he  (Christ,  the  true  God)  hath 
purchased  with  his  own  blood,"  Acts  xx,  38. 
Which  church  was  this  ?  I  answer,  The  flock 
of  God,  embracing  his  people  in  every  age,  and 
under  every  dispensation. 

Hence  Christ  is  called  "  a  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world."  See  Rev.  v,  6 ; 
xiii,  8.     This    church    is    sometimes    called 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  25 

"  a  temple"  or  "  building  ;"  then  Christ  is  the 
"  corner  stone,"  "  the  foundation,"  Eph.  ii,  20, 
and  1  Cor.  iii,  11.  And  we  learn  from  Isaiah, 
the  prophet,  who  wrote  seven  hundred  years 
before  the  opening  of  the  gospel  dispensation, 
that  this  "  tried  stone,"  this  "  precious  corner 
stone,"  was  laid  in  Zion  for  a  foundation.  Isaiah 
xxviii,  16.  This  is  "  the  stone,  elect,  precious," 
on  whom  whosoever  believed  was  not  confound- 
ed. 1  Peter  ii,  6. 

This  church  is  again  called  "  a  flock"  or 
"  sheepfold :"  "  He  shall  feed  his  flock  like  a 
shepherd,  and  cany  the  lambs  in  his  bosom." 
In  Jeremiah  xxiii,  1-6,  this  flock  is  spoken  of, 
and  comforted  with  the  promise  of  better  days, 
under  pastors  that  should  care  for  them  and 
feed  them.  This  prediction  was  fulfilled  in  the 
days  of  the  Messiah.  And  in  direct  allusion 
to  this  and  similar  passages  he  said,  "  I  lay 
down  my  life  for  the  sheep."  "  Other  sheep  I 
have  which  are  not  of  this  (Jewish)  fold,  them 
must  I  bring,  and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and 
one  shepherd."  You  hear  one  of  those  sheep 
saying,  under  a  former  dispensation,  "  The  Lord 
is  my  shepherd,  I  shall  not  want ;"  see  Psalm 
xxiii,  1,  2,  3.  David's  Lord  was  Christ.  See 
Psalm  ex,  1,  and  Matt,  xxii,  44.  Again  the 
church  is  called  a  "  family ;"  one  family,  not 
two  or  more.  "  Of  whom  the  whole  family  in 
heaven  and  earth  is  named ;"  see  Eph.  iii,  15. 
Sectarian  bigotry,  either  among  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians, would  like  to  make  partitions  in  this 
building  of  God,  or  divisions  in  this  immense 


26  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

family;  but  the  liberal-minded  Paul,  who  had 
completed  his  education  in  the  "  third  heaven," 
had  learned  that  the  true  God  had  but  one 
family  in  the  universe.  In  the  eleventh  chapter 
of  Hebrews  we  have  the  names  of  some  of  the 
most  distinguished  members  of  this  family,  from 
the  first  martyr,  Abel,  down  to  the  venerable 
and  faithful  Samuel,  who  from  a  child  of  three 
years  old  had  been  actively  and  publicly  en- 
gaged in  the  service  of  this  church. 

Jesus,  speaking  of  the  Gentiles,  says,  "  They 
shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west,  and  shall 
sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  the  prophets 
in  the  kingdom  of  God."  Whether  you  interpret 
the  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God"  to  mean  that  part 
of  the  family  which  is  on  earth,  or  that  part 
which  is  in  heaven,  either  will  answer  our  pur- 
pose. We  thank  God,  "  our  Father  who"  is 
"in  heaven,"  that  he  has  but  one  family,  and 
has  constituted  of  angels  and  redeemed  men 
one  vast  brotherhood.     See  Rev.  vii,  9-17. 

Again,  the  church  is  called,  in  Rom.  xi,  24, 
"  a  good  olive  tree."  And  although  some  of  the 
branches  were  broken  off  for  unbelief,  the  olive 
was  never  rooted  up ;  but  on  that  stock  the 
Gentiles  were  grafted,  and  the  apostles  in- 
formed the  Jews  that  they  should  be  grafted  in 
again,  if  they  abode  not  in  unbelief.  We  admit 
there  were,  from  time  to  time,  circumstantial 
differences  in  the  church  of  God  under  different 
dispensations,  but  her  identity  has  been  always 
maintained.  She  has  been,  and  still  is,  substan- 
tiallj/the  same.    She  was  once  a  family  church, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  27 

then  a  national  church,  and  subsequently  a  uni- 
versal church.  She  once  looked  forth  as  the 
morning,  was  afterward  fair  as  the  moon,  and 
finally  clear  as  the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an  army 
with  banners.  From  the  dawn  of  her  morning 
to  her  meridian  splendour,  she  leaned  upon  her 
beloved,  "  Christ."  The  furniture  of  this  temple 
has  been  altered  ;  some  of  the  branches  of  this 
olive  tree  broken  off:  but  the  temple's  beauty 
is  not  marred ;  and  the  "  root  and  fatness  of  the 
olive  tree"  still  remain. 

In  conclusion,  we  remark,  from  the  time 
the  covenant  of  mercy  was  intimated  to  Adam 
and  Eve  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  down  to 
the  call  of  Abraham,  and  to  the  confirming 
of  that  covenant  with  him;  see  Gen.  xvii,  2, 
and  Gal.  iii,  17;  and  from  that  to  the  giving 
of  the  law,  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
after ;  and  from  that  to  the  coming  of  Christ ; 
and  from  his  advent  until  now,  men  have  been 
justified,  sanctified,  and  for  ever  saved,  in  the 
same  way,  and  under  the  auspices  of  the  same 
covenant  of  mercy.  For  this  is  tlie  "  covenant 
confirmed  of  God  in  Christ^''  Gal.  iii,  13-20. 
"  He  was  made  a  curse  for  us,"  "  that  the  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles, 
through  Jesus  Christ,"  that  we  might  receive 
"  ikiQ  promise  of  the  Spirit  through  faith."  Our 
Baptist  friends  contend  that  this  covenant,  of 
which  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal,  con- 
tained only  the  grant  of  the  earthly  Canaan  to 
the  natural  seed  of  Abraham.  But  surely  the 
apostle  understood  the  matter  in  an  entirely 


28  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

different  sense,  for  he  says,  the  blessing  of 
Ahraham  was  to  come  on  the  Gentiles,  and  that 
they  were  to  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit 
by  faith.  ,  This  is  precisely  what  Peter  refers 
to,  i.  e.,  "  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,"  when,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  referring  to  the  charter 
of  the  gospel  church,  he  says,  "  The  promise  is 
unto  you,  and  to  your  children,"  &c.,  Acts  ii, 
38,  39.  And  in  giving  an  account  of  the  falling 
of  the  Spirit  on  Cornelius  and  his  family,  he 
says,  "  Forasmuch,  then,  as  God  gave  them 
(the  Gentiles)  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us, 
(Jews,)  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
what  was  I,  that  I  could  withstand  God  ?"  Acts 
xi,  17.  Here  you  see  in  Christ,  according  to 
the  language  of  the  covenant,  all  the  families 
of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed. 

St.  Paul  says,  "  The  scripture,  foreseeing 
that  God  would  justify  the  heathen  through 
faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abra- 
ham," Gal.  iii,  8.  This  promise,  referred  to 
above,  the  promise  of  mercy  and  grace,  "  I  will 
be  a  God  to  thee  and  to  thy  seed,"  was  ordained 
in  the  hands  of  a  Mediator ;  and  when  this 
Mediator  appeared,  we  find  that  a  company  of 
Jewish  shepherds,  and  a  company  of  Gentile 
philosophers,  alike  present  themselves  at  his 
shrine  as  the  representatives  of  the  two  great 
divisions  of  the  family  of  man ;  as  the  "  first 
fruits  of  the  fast  coming  harvest"  of  the  world 
to  Christ. 

When  Jesus  looked  over  the  Samaritan 
people,  he  said  to  the  apostles, "  Say  ye  not  four 


iMODE   OF  BAPTISM.  29 

months,  and  then  cometh  harvest  ?  lift  up  your 
eyes  and  look  on  the  fields,  for  they  are  white 
already  to  harvest."  "  Other  men  (patriarchs 
and  prophets)  have  laboured,  and  ye  have  en- 
tered into  their  labours,"  John  iv,  35,  38.  The 
church  has  always  been  "  God's  husbandry"  as 
well  as  "  God's  building,"  and  the  fields  had 
been  under  culture  for  four  thousand  years. 
Although  the  state  of  morals  in  the  visible 
church  at  the  coming  of  Christ  was  greatly 
sunken,  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples,  "  The 
scribes  and  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat;  there- 
fore, whatsoever  they  command  you,  that  ob- 
serve and  do,  but  do  ye  not  according  to  their 
loorks,  for  they  say,  and  do  not."  And  of  this 
visible  church,  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus  were 
both  members,  as  also  his  apostles.  For  in 
addition  to  the  observance  of  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision, they  kept  the  passover,  up  to  the  eve 
of  Christ's  apprehension  and  crucifixion.  The 
true  state  of  the  case  seems  to  be  this : — When 
the  Messiah,  "  the  promised  seed,"  the  Mediator 
of  the  (Abrahamic)  covenant,'"  "the  minister  of 
the  true  tabernacle,"  appeared  and  presented 
his  claims,  those  of  the  visible  church  who  ad- 
mitted his  Messiahship,  and  were  gathered  to 
the  Shiloh,  were  continued  in  the  true  and  good 
olive,  and  those  who  rejected  him  were  broken 
ofi'.  The  children  of  the  visible  kingdom 
were  cast  out,  the  rite  of  circumcision  gave  way 
to  the  rite  of  haptism,  and  the  passover  was 
superseded  by  the  institution  of  the  Lord^s 
supper.     See  1  Cor.  v,  7.     Our  Baptist  friends 


30  OBLIGATIOX,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

admit  this,  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned.  It 
is  true,  however,  that  Mr.  B.,  in  his  Strictures, 
pages  4  and  5,  intimates  very  strongly  that  cir- 
cumcision has  never  been  discontinued  by  an 
"  express  command."  His  words  are,  "  Why 
not  both  circumcise  and  baptize  them?  You 
have  never  had  any  '  express  command''  to  dis- 
continue the  one,  and  practise  the  other."  Now, 
candid  reader,  although  Mr.  B.  may  not  be  able 
to  see  in  God's  word  any  passage  abrogating 
circumcision,  yet  you  will  see  one  in  which  it 
is  set  forth,  if  you  will  look  at  Acts  xv,  1,  2,  5, 
10,  28,  29.  And  we  learn  from  Acts  xvi,  4, 
that  Paul,  Silas,  and  Timotheus  went  through 
the  churches,  delivering  the  decrees  to  them 
on  this  subject ;  and  the  decree  on  the  "  dis- 
continuing of  circumcision"  was  the  result  of 
the  judgment  of  a  council  of  apostles  and  elders, 
confirmed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  See  the  passage 
above  referred  to. 

And  in  confirmation  of  the  fact  that  baptism 
came  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  the  apostle 
calls  baptism  the  "  circumcision  of  Christ," 
Col.  ii,  11,  12.  And  I  am  supported  in  this 
opinion  by  one  of  Mr.  B.'s  witnesses  :  "  The 
great  Whitby  (as  he  calls  him, — and  I  suppose, 
if  the  testimony  of  the  idtness  is  good  for  Mr. 
B.,  his  testimony  will  be  as  good  for  me  against 
Mr.  B. — Let  us  hear  the  witness)  says,  '  The 
apostle,  speaking  here  of  the  circumcision  made 
without  hands,  and  of  the  circumcision  made  in 
baptism,  and  consisting  in  the  putting  off  the 
sins  of  the  flesh,  cannot,  by  the  circumcision 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  31 

of  Christ,  mean  his  own  personal  circumcision, 
which  was  made  with  hands,  but  that  which  he 
hath  instituted  in  the  room  of  it,  viz.,  baptism. 
That  baptism,  therefore,  is  a  rite  of  initiation 
to  the  Christians,  as  circumcision  was  to  the 
Jews.' "     See  Whitby  on  the  place. 

Who  doubts  that  circumcision  \vas  the  ini- 
tiating rite  among  the  Jews,  and  in  the  church, 
from  the  day  \vhen  Abraham  was  ninety-nine, 
and  Ishmael  thirteen  years  old.  For  as  our 
Lord  said,  "  Circumcision  was  not  of  Moses, 
but  of  the  fathers."  And  if  baptism  is  not  the 
initiating  rite,  the  seal  and  sign  of  the  covenant 
of  mercy,  the  church,  under  the  gospel,  lias  no 
initiatory  rite. 

But  Mr.  B.,  p.  17,  supposes  that  "  the  coming 
of  the  promised  seed  (the  Messiah)  put  an  end, 
however,  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  conse- 
quently to  all  its  ordinances,  for  ever."  Shock- 
ing !  that  men  should  be  willino-  to  disannul  the 
only  covenant  of  mercy  and  grace  from  God  to 
man,  a  covenant  that  embraced  the  promise  of 
Messiah,  and  the  blessing  of  all  natio7is  through 
him,  in  order  the  more  effectually  to  deprive 
unoffending  infants  of  the  rights  which  they  had 
enjoyed  unmolested  for  about  two  thousand  years. 
Under  what  covenant,  pray,  do  such  conclude 
themselves  ?  "  Christ  was  made  a  curse  for  us, 
that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on 
us  through  faith."  How,  then,  I  ask,  can  the 
covenant  be  done  away,  and  its  blessings  still 
enjoyed  by  Jews  and  Gentiles  ?  I  hope  it  will 
not  be  said  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  is  the 


32  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

possession  of  the  earthly  Canaan.  God  made 
two  covenants  with  Abraham,  one  before  the 
birth  of  Ishmael.  See  Gen.  xv,  7-21.  In  this 
was  contained  the  grant  of  the  earthly  Canaan 
to  his  natural  seed,  through  the  line  of  Isaac 
and  Jacob.  This  covenant  was  ratified  by  the 
passing  of  a  burning  lamp  and  a  smoking  fur- 
nace between  the  pieces  of  slain  beasts  which 
Abram  had  provided,  while  a  "  horror  of  thick 
darkness  fell  upon  Abram,"  emblematical,  or 
typical,  of  the  hard  bondage  which  his  natural 
seed  should  endure  in  Egypt.  The  metes  and 
bounds  of  their  inheritance  were  distinctly 
marked  out.  This  covenant  received  not  its 
full  accomplishment  until  the  days  of  David. 
See  Acts  vii,  45  ;  2  Samuel  viii,  3,  &c. ;  and 
2  Chron.  ix,  26. 

About  fourteen  years  afterward  God  changed 
the  name  oi  Ahram  to  that  oi  Abraham;  see 
Gen.  xvii,  5-27 ;  and  having  said  in  regard  to 
the  first  covenant,  chap,  xii,  2,  "  I  will  make  of 
thee  a  great  nation^''  he  now  says,  chap,  xviii, 
4,  5,  "  Thou  shalt  be  k  father  of  many  nations." 
This  last  is  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  "  the 
covenant."  Of  this  covenant,  circumcision 
was  the  sign  and  seal. 

\  ask  the  candid  reader  to  put  the  statements 
of  Mr.  B.,  on  the  subject  of  this  covenant,  in 
contact  with  the  testimony  of  Zacharias,  the 
father  of  John  the  Baptist.  When  John  was 
eight  days  old,  and  they  were  about  to  perform 
upon  the  "  unconscious  infant''''  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision— about  to  put  upon  him  the  seal  of 


MODE   OF  BAP7ISM.  33 

the  Abrahamic  covenant — the  tongue  of  Zacha- 
rias  was  loosed,  and  being  filled  with  the  Holy- 
Ghost,  he  uttered  the  following  language : — 
"  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  for  he 
hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people.  And 
hath  raised  up  a  horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the 
house  of  his  servant  David ;  as  he  spake  by 
the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  which  have 
been  since  the  world  began :  that  we  should  be 
saved  from  our  enemies,  and  from  the  hand  of 
all  that  hate  us ;  to  perform  the  mercy  promised 
to  our  fathers,  and  to  remember  his  holy  cove- 
nant ;  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  father 
Abraham,  that  he  would  grant  unto  us,  that  we 
being  delivered  out  of  the  hand  of  our  enemies, 
might  serve  him  without  fear,  in  holiness  and 
righteousness  before  him,  all  the  davs  of  oun 
life ;"  see  Luke  i,  67-80. 

Do  these  words  even  intimate  that  the  ad- 
vent of  the  Messiah  "  would  put  an  end  to  the 
Abrahamic  covenant?''^  as  Mr.  B.  says  above. 
And  does  Zacharias  celebrate  the  abolition  of 
this  covenant  ?  Does  he  not  rather  bless  God 
for  the  manifestation  of  the  "  mercy  promised^'' 
and  the  bestowment  of  those  important  bless- 
ings included  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ?  To 
remember  his  holy  covenant,  as  a  covenant-keep- 
ing God,  is  to  give  to  those  who  have  "  taken 
hold  of  his  covenant"  those  immunities  vouch- 
safed in  tliis  contract  or  stipulation. 

The  intelligent  reader  will  perceive  that  Za- 
charias never  intimates  that  the  possession  of 
the  earthly  Canaan  was  any  part  of  the  bless- 
3 


34  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

ings  embraced  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
The  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers  embraced  all 
spiritual  blessings  in  Christ  Jesus ;  and  only 
embraced  temporal  good  secondarily. 

The  temporal  advantages  connected  with  cir- 
cumcision were  restricted  to  the  seed  of  /Vbra- 
ham  according  to  the  flesh,  through  the  line  of 
Isaac.  We  read  that  "  Abraham  took  Ishmael, 
his  son,  and  all  that  were  born  in  his  house, 
and  all  that  were  bought  with  his  money,  every 
male  of  the  family  of  Abraham,  and  circumcised 
the  flesh  of  their  foreskin,  in  the  self-same  day, 
as  God  had  said  unto  him."  The  circumcision 
of  these  persons  entailed  upon  them  no  right  to 
the  land  of  Canaan  ;  nor  did  the  circumcision 
of  slaves  in  after  times  procure  them  either  civil 
liberty  or  landed  property ;  they  must  therefore 
have  received  some  spiritual  privileges,  or  they 
gained  nothing  by  the  rite.  Mr.  B.  says,  page 
16  of  his  sermon,  "  We  know  that  Esau  and 
Ishmael,  and  others,  descendants  of  Abraham, 
were  rejected  from  the  covenant  of  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ."  Then  their  circumcision  was  a 
solemn  mockery. 

How  can  he  know  this,  when,  according  to 
his  own  showing,  the  covenant  of  salvation  was 
not  ofl^ered  to  them,  and  the  only  covenant  of 
which  they  knew  any  thing  was  purely  of  a 
temporal  nature?  Hence  ho  says,  page  16, 
''-  Every  one  of  Abraham's  natural  descendants 
might  have  been  sons  of  perdition,  and  yet  all 
the  ends  proposed  (by  the  covenant)  might  have 
been  accomplished."     Candid  reader,  can  you 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  35 

credit  such  views  ?  "  I  speak  as  nnto  wise  men, 
judsre  ye  what  I  say." 

That  Gentiles  derived  spiritual  privileges  from 
circumcision  is  clearly  evident  from  Isaiah  Ivi, 
6,  7,  "  Also  the  sons  of  the  stranger,  that  join 
themselves  to  the  Lord  to  serve  him, — and 
taketh  hold  of  my  covenant ;  even  them  will  I 
bring  to  my  holy  mountain,  and  make  them 
joyful  in  my  house  of  prayer  ;  their  burnt  offer- 
ings and  sacrifices  shall  be  accepted  upon  mine 
ahar,"  &c. 

As  the  covenant  is  called  the  covenant  of 
circumcision,  no  uncircumcised  person  could 
take  hold  of  it ;  nor  was  it  permitted  to  any  one 
who  had  not  received  the  sign  of  the  covenant 
to  enter  into  the  temple  and  engage  in  its  sacred 
services.  The  persons  mentioned  in  the  text 
therefore  were  circumcised  Gentiles,  and  all  the 
immunities  which  they  enjoyed,  as  here  enume- 
rated, were  of  a  purely  religious  nature. 

The  apostle  Paul,  who  was  well  acquainted 
with  this  whole  subject,  has  spoken,  we  think, 
in  a  way  calculated  to  settle  the  question,  Rom. 
iii,  1,  2,  3,  "What  profit  is  there  of  circum- 
cision ?"  The  answer  is,  "  Much  every  way  ; 
CHIEFLY,  because  that  unto  them  were  commit- 
ted the  oracles  of  Godr  We  hope  our  Baptist 
friends  will  not  make  so  wide  a  mistake  as 
to  say  that  the  oracles  of  God  are  the  earthly 
Canaan. 

Although  the  Jews  had  temporal  benefits  as 
a  nation,  connected  with  circumcision,  yet  the 
rite  was  not  instituted  on  that  account.     "  Cir- 


36  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

cumcision  \ erily projlieth,  if  thou  keep  the  law; 
but  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circum- 
cision is  made  imcircumcision,"  Rom.  ii,  25. 
Here,  again,  the  profit  of  circumcision  is  not 
made  to  consist  in  the  enjoyment  of  temporal 
blessings  ;  but  in  keeping  the  law,  or  oracles 
of  God.  Surely  this  did  not  regard  the  earthly 
Canaan. 

Mr.  B.  sajrs,  page  17  of  his  sermon,  "  While 
he  (that  is,  Abraham)  was,  literally,  the  father 
of  the  whole  Jewish  family,  he  was,  spirituall)'-, 
the  father  of  none  but  believers,  even  among  his 
own  offspring :  and  now,  as  circumcision  was 
enjoined  upon  all  his  natural  seed,  it  follows, 
of  course,  that  the  design  of  it  was  literal,  and 
that  its  benefits  were  to  be  looked  for  in  con- 
nection with  the  literal  import  of  the  several 
promises  which  God  had  made  to  him  :  thus, 
those  who  were  circumcised  should  be  acknow- 
ledged his  natural  descendants  ;  should  be  pro- 
tected by  the  arm  of  God  in  the  enjoyment  of 
the  privileges  connected  with  all  that  arrange- 
ment by  which  it  was  designed  to  keep  them  a 
separate  nation  ;  and  finally  should  inherit  the 
land  of  Canaan.  A  candid  observer  must  per- 
ceive, that  as  the  literal  provisions  of  this  cove- 
nant were  confined  to  Abraham's  natural  seed, 
the  literal  rites  of  the  covenant  must  also  be 
confined  to  that  people." 

The  statements  made  in  this  quotation  are 
plainly  and  flatly  contradicted  by  the  facts  in 
the  case.  The  three  hundred  and  eighteen 
men  of  Abraham's  house   who  were   circum- 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  37 

cised,  were  they  a  part  of  his  natural  seedl 
Gen.  xiv,  14.  And  were  those,  and  Ishmael, 
and  his  seed,  kept  a  separate  nation  ?  And  did 
they  finally  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan  ?  Again ; 
were  those  servants  acknowledged  his  natural 
descendants?  Mr.  B.  says  so.  What  say  you, 
candid  reader  ?  The  idea  that  circumcision  was 
designed  only  as  a  national  badge,  (the  idea 
that  is  so  confidently  advanced  by  some  of  our 
Baptist  teachers,)  is  contradicted  by  the  facts 
connected  with  the  original  institution  of  circum- 
cision, as  well  as  by  the  facts  connected  with 
the  history  of  the  institution.  For  if  it  was  a 
national  badge  to  the  Jews,  or  descendants  of 
Abraham  by  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  it  v/as 
equally  so  to  the  descendants  of  Abraham  by 
the  line  of  Ishmael  and  Esau.  For  the  Ish- 
maelites,  Arabians,  and  Saracens,  all  practised 
the  rite  ;  and  at  this  day,  circumcision  is  the 
initiating  rite  to  the  Mohammedan  as  well  as 
the  Jew. 

How  can  that  be  a  national  badge  to  one 
nation  that  is  practised  by  many  nations?  "  I 
speak  as  unto  wise  men,  judge  ye  what  I  say." 

Having  shown,  as  we  trust,  in  the  foregoing 
observations,  the  identity  of  the  church,  and 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  (of  which 
circumcision  was  the  sign  and  seal)  was  the 
covenant  of  grace,  intimated  in  Eden  to  Adam, 
(when  his  whole  posterity  were  yet  in  his 
loins,)  and  fully  made  known  under  the  gospel 
dispensation  ;  the  seed  of  the  woman  having 
now  bruised  the  serpent's  head,  by  his  cruci- 


38  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

fixion  on  the  cross,  having  "  been  made  a  curse 
for  us,  thai  the  '  blessing  of  Abraham^  might 
come  on  all  that  believe,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles ; 
that,  according  to  the  stipulations  of  the  cove- 
nant, he  might  be  the  ''father  of  many  nations-^'''' 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that,  in  this 
covenant,  (as  understood  anciently,)  the  right 
of  infant  church  membership  was  recognised. 

In  proof  that  infants  were  to  be  recognised 
as  having  membership  in  i\ie  family  church,  see 
Gen,  xvii,  11-13:  "And  ye  shall  circumcise 
the  flesh  of  your  foreskin,  and  it  shall  be  a 
token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you. 
And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circum- 
cised among  you,  every  male  child  in  your 
generation ;  he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  01^ 
bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not 
of  thy  seedy  This  was  the  original  constit^ition 
of  the  church  of  the  true  God :  the  original 
charter  of  that  "  Jerusalem  which  is  the  mother 
of  us  all,"  Gal.  iv,  26.  And  here  the  rights  of 
"  unconscious  babes''^  are  acknowledged. 

This  charter  was  in  force,  observe,  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of 
the  law.  And  St.  Paul  says,  Gal.  iii,  17,  The 
law  did  not  disannul  the  covenant  which  was 
confirmed  of  God  in  Christ  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  before. 

We  see  the  covenant  carried  into  effect  in 
respect  to  children  during  the  law.  We  quote, 
in  proof,  2  Chron.  xxxi,  14,  19.  In  this  pas- 
sage, brethren,  wives,  sons,  daughters,  and  little 
ones,  are  all  mentioned  as  enterinainto the  house 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  39 

of  the  Lord.  And  this  extended  "  through  all 
the  congregation,"  and  we  are  told  that  Heze- 
kiah,  in  tliis  arrangement  of  the  congregation, 
did  that  which  was  right  and  good  before  the 
Lord  his  God.  Verse  20.  Now  we  never  heard 
it  denied  that  the  priests  and  Levites  entered 
not  into  the  active  and  official  services  of  the 
temple  until  the  age  of  thirty :  we  see  this 
illustrated  in  the  case  of  John  the  Baptist,  who 
was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  the  family  of 
Aaron.  Yet  we  learn  from  the  passage  in 
Chronicles,  that  the  "  little  ones'^  of  three  years 
old  entered  into  the  "  house  of  the  Lord,"  and 
made  a  part  of  the  congregation. 

This  will  throw  light  on  that  passage  in 
Deut.  xxix,  10,  13,  "  Ye  stand  this  day  all  of 
you  before  the  Lord  your  God,  '  your  little  oneSy 
&c.,  to  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  your 
God,"  &c.  Children  of  three  years  old  enter 
into  covenant  with  God  ?  Yes,  this  is  their  own 
personal  act.  Nor  are  these  the  only  places 
where  little  ones  are  public  characters ;  for 
Joshua,  in  confirming  or  renewing  the  national 
covenant  on  Mount  Gerizim,  "  read  all  the 
words  of  the  law,  the  blessings  and  cursings, 
according  to  all  that  is  written  in  the  book  of 
the  law,"  to  the  little  ones — to  children  three 
years  old.  Josh,  viii,  34,  35.  "  It  is  clear  from 
the  passages  adduced,  that  children  of  three 
years  old  were  members  of  the  national  church, 
and  engaged  in  the  most  sacred  rites  and  so- 
lemn transactions,  equally  with  their  fathers. 
They  were,  no  doubt,  subject  to  the  same  pre- 


40  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

paratoiy  purifications,  and  were  treated  on  the 
same  ritual  principles  as  their  fathers." 

You  find  from  1  Sam.  i,  22,24,28,  and  ii,  11, 
that  as  soon  as  Hannah  weaned  Samuel,  she 
brought  him  and  lent  him  to  the  Lord,  "  And  he 
ministered  unto  the  Lord  before  Eli  the  priest^ 
being  a  child  girded  with  a  linen  ephod." 

"  Having  shown  that,  by  the  authority  of  God, 
infants  were  received  into  the  covenant  and  the 
church ;  that  at  three  years  of  age  they  were 
publicly  recognised  as  members  of  the  church, 
and  personally  performed  public  acts  of  mem- 
bership, it  follows,  that  the  same  divine  author- 
ity which  granted  the  right  must  be  shown  to 
have  cancelled  it,  before  they  can  justly  be  de- 
prived of  it ;  and  as  no  one  pretends  that  God 
has  prohibited  the  membership  of  infants  under 
the  gospel,  the  original  grant  must  remain  in  full 
forceJ^ 

We  shall  explain  this  part  of  the  subject  by 
an  illustration  or  two.  What  is  called  in  most 
of  the  states  of  this  Union  the  common  laio,  is 
the  law  of  the  commonwealth,  unless  in  the 
particular  case  the  common  law  has  been  re- 
pealed by  express  statute  law.  Hence  it  is 
sometimes  a  question  in  the  courts,  (which 
cannot  be  decided  without  an  appeal,)  whether 
the  case  before  the  court  is  actionable  at  com- 
mon law,  or  whether  it  has  been  provided  for 
by  express  statute.  Apply  the  matter.  We 
find  the  right  of  infant  church  membership 
acknowledged  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
and  in  the  church  of  God,  for  about  two  thou- 


>r<5DE  OF  BAPTISM.  41- 

sand  years.  We  take  their  having  had  a  title 
as  prima  facie  evidence  that  they  have  a  title 
still.  We  look  into  the  New  Testament,  (which 
I  consider  the  book  of  statute  law  for  the 
church,)  to  see  if  there  is  any  precept  or  pre- 
cedent, any  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for  ex- 
cluding infants ;  any  abrogating  statute  ;  and 
we  find  none.  Take  another  case  :  There  is 
now  in  Virginia  what  is  called  a  "  new  constitu- 
tion f^  has  any  intelligent  citizen  of  the  state 
ever  entertained  an  idea  that  this  is  any  other 
than  the  old  constitution  amended,  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  state,  vested  in  a  convention  of 
the  citizens  ?  Are  not  the  privileges  of  the  citi- 
zens precisely  the  same  as  under  the  old  con- 
stitution, except  so  far  as  that  was  amended  by 
the  direct  action  of  the  convention  ?  Do  not  the 
strong  features  of  the  constitution  remain  the 
same  ?  Were  the  terms  of  citizenship  altered  1 
or  the  essential  privileges  of  the  citizens  in- 
fringed, by  the  partial  amendments  which  are 
found  to  have  been  made  ?  Or  does  any  citizen 
infer  other  amendments,  from  the  fact  that  he 
finds  some  plainly  stated  in  the  new  charter  or 
constitution  ?  And  if  a  question  should  arise  in 
the  state  about  implied  privileges,  or  abridged 
rights,  I  suppose  the  gentleman  who  should 
indulge  his  imagination  in  the  case  would  be 
expected  to  furnish  the  burden  of  proof  ,  to  sup- 
port his  inferences :  he  would  not  be  allowed  to 
change  the  old  constitution  by  inference.  Apply 
the  illustration  to  the  case  in  hand.  We  call 
upon  our  Baptist  friends  to  show,  if  they  can, 


42  OBLIGATION,  SUBJEC1V3,  AND 

that  there  has  taken  place,  under  the  New 
Testament  dispensation,  any  essential  change 
in  the  privileges  of  the  church,  or  its  members. 
Zion,  indeed,  has  "  enlarged  her  borders,"  but 
her  "  citizens]^  and  their  privileges  are  substan- 
tially  the  same.  Here  we  might  rest  this  branch 
of  the  argument,  until  those  who  exclude  little 
children  from  the  visible  family  of  God  should 
produce  the  statute  of  repeal  by  which  their 
privileges  are  taken  away.  And  till  this  be 
done,  their  rights  may  be  safely  rested  upon  the 
original  grant.  But  we  shall  show  not  only 
that  they  were  in  the  church  formerly^  but  that 
Christ  did  not  exclude  them  under  the  gospel 
economy. 

I  am  aware  that  many  objections  are  urged 
against  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  to 
children  ;  and  when  argument  fails,  sneers  and 
ridicule  are  made  to  do  what  argument  cannot, 
and  Scripture  will  not,  accomplish.  It  is  called 
"  infant  sprinkling,"  "  baby  sprinkling."  And 
again  it  is  asked,  "  What  do  they  know  about 
the  ordinance  ?"  Take  one  specimen  of  many, 
from  Mr.  Broaddus's  sermon,  p.  41  :  "  Thanks 
to  the  ingenuity  of  Pope  Stephen  III.  for  an 
invention  which  secures  the  dear  little  crea- 
tures a  place  in  heaven,  wdthout  the  inconve- 
nience and  danger  of  being  plunged  into  a 
stream  or  pool  of  water."  It  is  likely  iMr.  B. 
has  a  better  opinion  of  the  pope's  close  commu- 
nion. Query :  Can  he,  or  the  pope,  furnish  a 
"Thus  saitii  the  Lord,"  for  excluding  their 
brethren  from  the  table  of  our  common  Lord, 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  43 

and  thus  "  making  terms  of  communion  that  are 
not  terms  of  salvation  V  See  Robert  Hall's, 
Works.  Can  Mr.  B.  furnish  a  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord"  for  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  as  the  Christian  sabbath,  instead  of  the 
seventh  ?  Yet  he,  and  the  whole  Christian 
world,  so  far  as  I  know,  (except  the  seventh- 
day  Baptists,)  agree  to  adopt  it  as  the  sabbath. 
I  suppose  that  can  be  managed  without  an 
express  warrant,  and  can  be  abundantly  made 
out  from  precedent  and  inference,  &lq,.,  &c.,  as 
it  does  not  stand  in  the  way  of  "  believers' 
baptism,"  or  "  baptism  by  immersion."  We 
trust,  candid  reader,  to  furnish  you  evidence, 
with  regard  to  the  subjects  of  baptism,  which 
shall  not,  with  you,  at  least,  be  set  aside  by 
irony  or  ridicule. 

PROSELYTE    BAPTISM. 

That  baptism  was  in  existence  before  the 
days  of  John  the  Baptist  seems  evident  from 
the  writings  of  some  of  the  Jews,  especially  as 
practised  in  the  case  of  proselytes.  Maimonides 
holds  on  this  subject  the  following  language  : — 
"  In  ALL  ages,  vjhen  a  heathen  (or  a  stranger  by 
nation)  was  willing  to  enter  into  the  covenant  of 
Israel,  and  gather  himself  under  the  wings  of  the 
majesty  of  God,  and  take  upon  himself  the  yoke 
of  the  law,  he  must  be  first  circumcised,  and 
secondly  baptized,  and  thirdly  bring  a  sacrifice ; 
or  if  the  party  were  a  woman,  then  she  must  be 
first  BAPTIZED,  and  secondly  bring  a  sacrificed 
— Clarke's  Commentary  at  the  end  of  Mark. 


44  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

And  this  fact  does  not  rest  on  the  authority  of 
the  Jews  alone,  for  that  the  practice  existed, 
and  was  known  to  the  heathens,  is  clear  from 
the  words  of  Epictetus :  (he  is  blaming  those 
who  assume  the  profession  of  philosophy  with- 
out acting  up  to  it:)  "  Why  do  you  call  your- 
self a  stoic  ?  Why  do  you  deceive  the  multi- 
tude ?  Why  do  you  pretend  to  be  a  Greeli, 
when  you  are  a  Jew,  a  Syrian,  an  Egyptian  ? 
And  when  we  see  one  wavering,  we  are  wont 
to  say,  This  is  not  a  Jew,  but  acts  one.  But 
when  he  assumes  the  sentiments  of  one  who 
hath  been  baptized  and  circumcised,  then  he  both 
really  is,  and  is  called  a  Jew,"  &c. 

This  practice,  then,  of  the  Jews — proselyte 
baptism — was  so  notorious  to  the  heathens  in 
Italy  and  Greece,  that  it  furnished  this  philo- 
sopher with  an  object  of  comparison.  Now, 
Epictetus  lived  to  be  very  old — he  is  placed  by 
Dr.  Lardner  A.  D.  109  ;  by  Le  Clerc,  A.D.  104. 
He  could  not  be  less  than  sixty  years  of  age 
when  he  wrote  this  :  and  he  might  obtain  his 
information  thirty  or  forty  years  earlier,  which 
brings  it  up  to  the  time  of  the  apostles.  Those 
who  coidd  think  that  the  Jews  could  institute 
proselyte  baptism.,  at  the  very  moment  when  the 
Christians  were  practising  baptism  as  an  initia- 
tory rite,  are  not  to  be  envied  for  the  correct- 
ness of  their  judgment.  The  rite  dates  much 
earlier,  probably  many  ages.  I  see  no  reason 
for  disputing  the  assertion  of  Maimonides,  not- 
withstanding Dr.  Gill's  rash  and  fallacious  lan- 
guage on  the  subject.     See  Facts  and  Evi- 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  45 

tlences,  as  quoted  by  Watson.  "  This  baptism 
of  proselytes,  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  has  fully  shown, 
was  a  haptis7n  of  families,  and  comprehended 
their  ufant  children;  and  the  rite  was  a  symbol 
of  their  being  washed  from  the  pollution  of 
idolatiy.  Very  different,  indeed,  in  the  extent 
of  its  import  and  office,  was  Christian  baptism 
to  the  Jewish  baptism ;  nevertheless,  this  shows 
that  the  Jews  were  familiar  wdth  the  rite  as  it 
extended  to  children,  in  cases  of  conversions 
from  idolatry;  and,  as  far  at  least  as  the  con- 
verts from  paganism  to  Christianity  were  con- 
cerned, they  could  not  but  understand  Christian 
baptism  to  extend  to  the  infant  children  of  Gen- 
tile proselytes,  unless  there  had  been,  what  we 
nowhere  find  in  the  discourses  of  Christ,  or  the 
writings  of  the  apostles,  an  express  exception  of 
them." — Watson  on  Baptism. 

It  is  objected  to  infant  baptism  that  infants 
are  not  capable  of  believing,  and  that  as  the 
apostles  received  a  comnfiission  to  baptize  be- 
lievers, Mark  xvi,  15, 16,  therefore  infants  ought 
to  be  refused  the  ordinance.  This  reason  lies 
equally  against  infant  salvation.  An  argument 
that  proves  too  much  (as  this  does)  proves  no- 
thing, only  that  he  who  uses  it  is  hard  run  for  an 
argument.  Let  us  look  at  this  matter  a  moment. 
Infants  cannot  believe,  therefore  they  ought  not 
to  be  baptized.  Infants  cannot  believe,  there- 
fore they  must  be  damned  !  For  the  text  says, 
"  He  that  helievcth  not  shall  be  damned."  Mr. 
B.  says,  p.  7,  "I  will  engage  to  prove,  that  the 
commission    actually  excludes   all   unl 


46  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Avhetlier  unconscious  infants  or  unbelieving 
adults."  "  Why  tell  them  to  baptize  believers, 
if  they  were  to  baptize  all  men  indiscrimi- 
nately?" Why  should  he  thus  "beat  the  air?" 
He  never  heard  an  intelligent  Pedobaptist  say 
that "  all  men  indiscriminately''*  are  to  be  baptized. 
Why  did  he  not  quote  Eph.  ii,  8  ?  "  By  grace 
are  ye  saved  through  faith."  But  infants  have 
no  faith ;  therefore  they  cannot  be  saved.  Or 
this  :  "  If  any  will  not  work,  neither  shall  he 
eat."  Children  cannot  work,  therefore  children 
should  not  be  allowed  to  eat ;  and  thus,  by  his 
reasoning,  furnish  a  pretext  for  starving  children 
according  to  the  word  of  the  apostle.  Or  he 
might  have  quoted :  "  The  Lord  Jesus  shall  be 
revealed  from  heaven  in  flaming  lire,  taking 
vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and 
obey  not  the  gospel."  Infants  know  not  God, 
and  obey  not  the  gospel,  therefore  he  will  take 
vengeance  on  them,  &c.  This  is  a  kind  of 
logic  that  puts  more  in  the  conclusion  than  is  in 
the  premises,  and  is  therefore  a  7nere  sophism. 
Again  :  "  Baptism,"  say  they,  "  is  the  answer 
of  a  good  conscience  ;  infants  cannot  have  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience,  therefore  they 
ought  not  to  be  baptized."  Infants  have  not  an 
evil  conscience,  and  that  is  more  than  can  be  said 
for  many  adults,  who  have  been  baptized  upon 
a  profession  of  faith.  They  have  innocence  to 
recommend  them  ;  while  of  Simon  Magus  it  is 
said,  "  Simon  himself  believed  also  ;  and  when 
he  was  baptized,"  &c.  We  soon  hear  of  this 
man  who  had  received  "behevers'  baptism," 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  47 

that  his  heart  "  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God," 
"  he  is  in  the  gall  of  bitterness"  "  Thou  hast 
no  part  or  lot  in  this  matter."  And  1  conclude 
Simon's  was  not  a  solitary  case. 

Mr.  B.'s  illustration  on  page  7  I  tliink  very 
unfortunate ;  because  there  is  an  obvious  want 
of  analogy  in  the  case.  His  words  are,  "  Sup- 
pose the  governor  of  Virginia  should  send  out 
recruiting  officers,  under  a  commission  reading 
as  follows,  viz. :  Go  through  all  the  state  and 
call  upon  all  the  inhabitants  to  enlist  in  the 
army,  giving  them  ten  dollars  each  ;"  he  says, 
*'  can  any  one  suppose  that  imconscious  infants 
are  included  among  those  who  are  to  receive 
the  ten  dollars  ?"  "  The  cases  (^he  says)  a!re 
precisely  parallel."  I  suppose,  if  infants  were 
as  capable  of  being  soldiers,  of  bearing  arms, 
and  marching  to  the  battle  field,  as  theij  were 
anciently,  and  are  noio,  of  receiving  the  sign  of 
the  covenant,  then  indeed  there  might  be  some 
analogy;  but  until  that  is  proved,  we  shall  not 
alloAv  Mr.  B.  to  pass  off  assumption  for  proof, 
or  sophistry  for  argument,  or  agree  that  he  shall 
beg  the  question  where  the  proof  is  absent;  as  he 
has  done  more  than  once  in  his  Strictures  and 
sermons. 

Again :  the  wording  of  the  commission,  in 
Matt,  xxviii,  19,  20,  is  urged  against  the  pro- 
priety of  admitting  children  to  baptism.  We 
must  always  try  to  put  ourselves  in  the  circum- 
stances of  those  who  are  addressed,  and  ask 
what  would  be  the  sense  which,  in  their  'peculiar 
circumstances,  we  would  have  been  likely  to  put 


48  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

upon  the  words.  Dr.  Watts  remarks,  tliat  we 
often  interpret  the  meaning  of  terms  from  early- 
impressions  made  upon  us  by  local  circum- 
stances. Hence,  says  he,  "  a  youth  raised  in 
sight  of  a  parish  church,  that  has  a  steeple  on 
it,  always  associates  in  his  mind,  when  he 
hears  the  word  church,  the  idea  of  a  house  with 
a  steeple,^^  &c.  So  when  a  man  unacquainted 
with  ancient  customs  reads  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, "  Men  do  not  put  new  wine  into  old 
bottles,  lest  the  bottles  burst,"  &c.,  he  is  at  a 
loss  to  understand  the  matter ;  for  his  mind 
directly  recurs  to  the  fact  that  glass  bottles 
which  have  been  tried  can  be  better  trusted  to 
stand  the  process  of  vinous  fermentation  than 
7tew  ones.  But  there  was  no  difficulty  in  the 
minds  of  those  to  whom  the  words  were  spoken 
originally ;  because  they  knew  of  no  bottles  ex- 
cept those  made  of  skins,  which  were  always 
strongest  when  new. 

If  the  original  commission  to  "  disciple  all 
nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c.,  had  been  given 
to  Mr.  B.,  or  any  of  his  brethren,  of  whom  it 
may  be  said  that  "  infant  baptism  is  their  soul's 
abhorrence,"  I  frankly  confess  that  it  would 
have  been  necessary  to  give  such  specific 
directions  to  admit  the  children  to  the  ordinance 
with  the  parents  ;  and  it  might  have  been  ne- 
cessary, for  aught  I  know,  to  work  a  miracle 
in  order  to  convince  them  that  there  was  any 
sense  or  justice  in  baptizing  "  a  babe.^^  Christ 
might  have  found  their  prejudices  as  stubborn 
as  were  Peter's,  who  could  not  discover  that 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  49 

"  God  was  no  respecter  of  persons,  until,  while 
in  a  trance,  a  sheet  was  let  down  from  heaven, 
and  a  voice  said  to  him  three  times^  Kill  and 
eat ;"  and  the  Spirit  said,  "  Go  with  the  men 
(of  Cornelius)  doubting  nothing,  for  I  have  sent 
them.''  Men's  prejudices  become  very  invete- 
rate, especially  when  they  grow  up  under  a 
system  of  exclusiveness.  Hear  Mr.  B.,  page  27, 
for  the  proof  of  the  above  :  ''  This  species  of 
tyranny  over  men's  consciences  (i.  e.,  baptizing 
infants)  would  better  suit  the  avowed  doctrines 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  than  the  professed  libe- 
rality of  Protestants.  It  would  be  difficult  for 
me  to  perceive  any  thing  more  arbitrary  in  bap- 
tizing adults  at  the  point  of  tlie  sv)ord,  than  in 
taking  unconscious  infants,  and  imposing  upon 
them  submission  to  a  religious  rite,  with  respect 
to  which  they  have  no  volition  or  choice." 

The  reader  can  perceive  from  this  quotation 
the  views  and  feeling^s  of  Mr.  B.  w^ith  regard  to 
infant  baptism.  I  hesitate  not  to  declare,  that 
the  doctrine  contained  in  the  above  is  calculated 
to  subvert  that  order  and  subordination  which  is 
necessary  to  the  well-being  of  society.  For  if 
it  is  tyranny  in  the  parent  to  dedicate  the  child 
to  God  in  baptism,  without  the  child's  choice  ; 
then  is  the  child's  liberty  taken  away,  if  the 
parent  requires  it  to  observe  the  Christian  sab- 
bath, or  to  go  to  the  house  of  God,  instead  of  to 
the  temple  of  an  idol.  The  apostle  considered 
it  not  warring  with  the  liberty  of  the  gospel,  or 
of  the  child,  to  say,  "  Children,  obey  your  pa- 
rents in  all  things,""  Col.  iii,  20 ;  and  to  require 
4 


50  OBLIGATION,  KUBJECTS,  AND 

tlie  parent  "  to  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord,"  Eph.  vi,  4.  If  the 
judgment  of  the  parent  is  to  govern  the  child  in 
its  minority,  surely  it  cannot  be  a  sore  evil  to 
the  child  to  be  dedicated  to  God  in  baptism, 
before  it  is  instructed  and  admonished  in  the 
Lord.  Such  ^^  tyrannical  imrents'''  have  the  ex- 
ample of  Abraham,  the  father  of  the  faithful,  to 
encourage  them ;  and  the  example  of  all  the 
faithful,  from  Abraham  down  to  Joseph  and 
Mary,  the  reputed  father  and  real  mother  of 
Jesus  ;  for  at  eight  days  old,  Jesus  was  solemnly 
recognized  as  a  member  of  the  church,  by  the 
rite  of  circumcision.  Yet  this,  according  to 
Mr.  B.,  was  about  as  arbitrary  as  if  John,  at 
the  age  of  thirty,  had  baptized  him  "  at  the 
point  of  the  sword." 

From  the  above  it  will  appear  how  inveterate 
are  the  prejudices  of  this  gentleman  against 
infant  baptism.  Hence  I  say,  if  he,  and  those 
"who  think  and  feel  as  he  does  on  this  subject, 
had  received  the  commission  which  Peter  and 
his  fellow  apostles  received,  the  directions  to 
admit  infants  would,  of  necessity,  have  been 
very  definite.  But  as  it  was,  the  commission 
Avas  put  into  the  hands  of  Jews,  who  had  never 
known  a  church  that  did  not  admit,  and  main- 
tain, the  right  of  infant  church  membership. 
They,  of  course,  would  so  understand  the  com- 
mission, as  to  admit  the  children  with  their 
parents,  as  was  always  the  case  when  Gen- 
tiles were  proselyted  to   the  Jewish  religion. 


MODE  or   BAPTISM.  51 

Being  well  acquainted  with  this  practice,  they 
would  admit  the  children,  unless  forbidden  to 
do  so. 

Peter  and  his  brethren  had  never  learned  to 
think  of  a  church  that  excluded  children  from 
membership,  and  of  course  would  not  attempt 
to  form  a  church  upon  a  new  model,  unless  spe- 
cijically  directed  so  to  do.  Jewish  children  were 
called  the  "  disciples  of  Moses  ;"  and  when  the 
commission  said,  "  Go  and  disciple  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  and  teaching  them,"  &c.,  they 
would  make  disciples  of  adults  and  their  chil- 
dren, as  the  Jewish  missionaries  had  been  ac- 
customed to  do  from  the  beginning.  They  who 
valued  themselves  upon  being  the  children  of 
Abraham  would  not  reject  the  infant  children 
of  the  followers  of  Abraham's  faith.  "  If  ye  be 
Christ's,  then  ar^  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise."  St.  Paul. 

It  is  objected  further,  if  they  are  admitted  to 
baptism,  on  the  same  ground  they  ought  to  be 
admitted  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper. 
This  objection  is  more  specious  than  valid.  It 
is  evident  to  all  who  reflect,  that  there  is  a 
manifest  difference  existing  in  the  two  ordi- 
nances, baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper, — as  is 
obvious  from  the  Scriptures,  and  from  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Baptists  themselves.  I  suppose  they 
do  not  admit  all  to  the  communion  (however 
unworthy)  who  have  been  once  baptized.  Now, 
infants  have  no  capacity  to  "discern  the  Lord's 
body,"  or  to   examine  themselves  before   ap- 


52  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

preaching  the  supper.  Nor  is  it  ever  said  of 
baptism,  "  He  that  receives  it  unworthily,  re- 
ceives it  to  his  own  damnation." 

The  children  of  Jewish  parents,  though  regu- 
lar church  members,  did  not  eat  of  the  passover 
until  a  given  age.  So  says  Calvin,  Institutes, 
b.  iv,  ch.  16:  "The  passover,  which  has  now 
been  succeeded  by  the  sacred  supper,  did  not 
admit  guests  of  all  descriptions  promiscuously ; 
but  was  rightly  eaten  only  by  those  who  were 
of  sufficient  age  to  be  able  to  inquire  into  its 
signiiication." 

Josephus  says,  Antiq.,  lib.  xii,  ch.  4,  "  The 
ld.w  forbids  the  son  to  cat  of  the  sacrifice  before 
he  has  come  to  the  temple,  and  there  presented 
an  ofiering  to  God." 

"  Children  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,"  says 
Poole,  "  were  brought  by  their  parents  to  the 
temple ;  and  from  that  time  they  hegaii  to  eat 
of  the  passover,  and  other  sacrifices." 

I  shall  quote  but  three  more  authorities  on 
this  point. 

"  Till  a  child  was  twelve  years  old,  he  was 
not  obliged  to  go  to  Jerusalem  at  the  lime  of  the 
passover."— Stackhouse,  Hist.  Bib.,  b.  viii,  ch.  1. 

"  The  males  were  not  brought  to  the  temple 
till  they  were  twelve  years  old,  and  the  sacrifices 
they  ate  were  chiefly  peace  offerings,  which 
became  the  common  food  to  all  that  were  clean 
in  the  family." — Dr.  Doddridge,  Lee,  p.  9, 
prop.  155. 

Hence  we  find,  in  Luke  ii,  21,  41,  42,  that 
although  Jesus  was  circumcised  at  eight  days 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  53 

old,  and  his  pajr?its  went,  up  evcnj  year  to  the 
passover  feast,  yet  there  is  no  intimation  that 
Jesus  ever  kept  the  feast,  until  he  was  twelve 
years  old  :  "  And  when  he  was  twelve  years 
old,  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem,  after  the  custom 
of  the  feast,"  The  learned  Dr.  Gi]l,  a  Baptist 
writer,  has  spoken  to  the  same  effect :  "  Ac- 
cording to  the  maxims  of  the  Jews,"  says  he, 
"  persons  were  not  obliged  to  the  duties  of  the 
law,  or  subject  to  its  penalties  in  case  of  non- 
performance, until  they  were,  a  female,  at  the 
age  of  twelve  years  and  one  day,  and  a  male 
at  the  age  of  thirteen  years  and  one  day.  But 
then  they  used  to  train  up  their  children,  and 
inure  them  to  religious  exercises  before.  They 
were  not  properly  under  the  law  until  they  had 
amved  at  the  age  above  mentioned ;  nor  were 
they  reckoned  adult  church  members  until  then, 
nor  then  neither,  unless  worthy  persons  :  for 
so  it  is  said,  '  He  that  is  worthy,  at  thirteen 
years  of  age,  is  called  a  son  of  the  congrega- 
tion of  Israel.' " — Gill's  Com.  on  Luke  ii,  42. 

From  the  examination  of  this  objection  to 
infant  baptism,  our  views  are  strengthened  ;  for 
it  appears  that  although  infants  were  formerly 
circumcised,  they  were  not  required  to  eat  the 
passover.  And  although  infants  are  to  be  bap- 
tized, ^^as  they  may  he  the  subjects  of  the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Christ,"  signified  by  baptism,  and  can 
thus  be  distinguished  visibly  as  the  special 
property  of  Christ,  yet  they  cannot,  in  the  sup- 
per, "  discern  the  Lord's  body,"  and  partake  of 


54  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

it  "  in  remembrance  of  him  ;"  and  are  morally 
and  physically  incapable  of  coming  to  the 
Lord's  table,  according  to  the  meaning  of  the 
institution. 

And  although,  at  some  periods  of  the  history 
of  the  church,  in  some  places  infant  communion 
was  held  ;  yet  it  was  never  said  to  have  come 
down  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  nor  did  it 
ever  generally  prevail  in  the  Christian  church. 
I  suppose  it  came  into  the  church  as  an  inno- 
vation, the  result  of  superstition^  and  prevailed 
about  as  extensively,  and  stood  upon  the  same 
footing,  as  the  practice  of  baptizing  men  and 
women  naked  ;  dipping  them  three  times,  and 
then  giving  milk  and  honey  to  the  baptized. 

We  shall,  in  the  next  place,  try  to  ascertain 
how  the  apostles  understood  their  commission, 
from  the  manner  in  which  they  executed  it,  as 
we  find  the  matter  detailed  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles. 

We  think  it  cannot  be  shown  that  in  any  case 
where  parents  were  baptized,  their  children 
were  left  still  to  be  the  disciples  of  Moses,  or 
in  an  outcast  heathen  state.  We  think  the 
cases  of  family  or  household  baptism  recorded, 
furnish,  at  least,  very  strong  presumptive  evi- 
dence for  infant  baptism ;  and  I  suppose  pre- 
sumptive evidence  for  them  will  be  considered 
good,  until  some  counter  evidence  is  produced. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Broaddus  says,  (sermon, 
page  11,)  "I  have  myself  baptized  four  house- 
holds, and  not  an  infant  among  them."  In  the 
whole    course   of  his   ministry,  I   suppose  in 


MODK  OF  BAPTISM.  55 

some  twelve  or  fourteen  years,  after  baptizing 
hundreds,  as  I  presume,  he  has  baptized  "/owr 
households,  and  not  an  infant  among  them."  I 
really  feel  a  little  curiosity  to  know  who  they 
were,  and  how  many  souls  the  four  households 
contained.  I  wonder  if  there  were  any  married 
persons  among  them?  I  hope,  if  this  gentle-  £ 
man  should  write  again,  he  will  give  us  some 
information  on  these  extraordinary  cases,  for  it 
is  surely  extraordinary  to  hear  of  a  Baptist 
preacher  baptizing  even  one  household,  except, 
perhaps,  where  a  man  and  his  wife,  or  a  hachelor 
and  his  maiden  sister,  constitute  a  household. 
We  are  thankful  to  Mr.  B.  for  this  piece  of  in- 
formation. It  seems,  then,  that  in  the  course 
of  his  whole  ministry,  after  having  baptized 
hundreds,  he  has  met  with  and  baptized  four 
households  that  had  no  infants  in  them. 

Now,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  the 
Epistles,  there  are  a  few  families  only  men- 
tioned. And  in  every  case  where  there  is 
mention  of  a  family,  there  is  the  total  absence 
of  evidence  that  any  part  of  the  family  was 
refused  baptism.  In  every  case  where  baptism 
is  mentioned  in  connection  with  a  family,  the 
evidence,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  in  favour  of  the 
baptism  of  the  parent  and  the  cMldren. 

We  will  take,  first,  the  case  of  Lydia,  Acts 
xvi,  15 :  "  And  when  she  was  baptized,  and 
her  househcldP  But  Mr.  B.  thinks,  page  10, 
that  possibly  the  household  were  "  Lydia's 
partners  in  her  mercantile  operations  ;"  he  says, 
possibly   they  were   ^^  journeymen    diers,''    "  or 


56  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

were  they  mere  travelling  companions  ?"  Our 
Baptist  friends  are  so  bent  upon  cutting  off  the 
right  of  infants  to  baptism,  that  they  will  sup- 
pose any  thing,  however  preposterous,  to  evade 
the  argument  drawn  from  household  baptisms. 

They  will  suppose  that  even  partners  in 
business  with  Lydia,  or  ^''journeymen  diers^* 
were  baptized,  and  constituted  "  brethren,"  al- 
though there  is  no  intimation  that  she  had  so 
much  as  one  partner  or  one  journeyman;  and  if 
she  had,  (which  we  think  very  unlikely,)  then 
they  were  baptized  and  made  brethren,  without 
grace  ;  for  the  passage  makes  no  mention  of 
the  heart  of  any  person  being  opened,  except 
Lydia's  ;  and  there  is  no  intimation  that  those 
journeymen  either  repented  or  believed,  and 
of  course  could  not  have  received  "  believer's 
baptism."  I  appeal  to  you,  reader,  to  judge, 
who  would  be  the  most  fit  for  baptism, — the 
children  of  a  believing  mother,  or  a  house- 
hold oi  graceless  ^'■journeymen  diersr  "  I  speak 
as  unto  wise  men." 

God  said,  "  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to 
thy  seedr  Peter  said,  "  The  promise  is  unto 
you  and  your  children.^''  And  Luke  says,  "  Lydia 
was  baptized,  and  her  household^  "  Judge  ye 
what  I  say." 

Is  there  not  strong  presumptive  evidence 
that  the  apostles  baptized  children  with  their 
parents  ? 

But  Mr.  B.  had  to  suppose  that  Lydia  had  a 
dying  establishment,  in  order  to  find  a  use  for 
"  journeymen ;"  and  then  he  thinks  it  would 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  57 

have  been  "  unsuitable"  and  "  inconvenient"  for 
her  to  have  brought  her  infant  or  infants  with 
her  such  a  distance,  even  if  she  had  them  at 
home.  He  thinks  it  "  very  improbable"  that 
she  would  have  them  with  her.  Now,  candid 
reader,  I  think  just  the  reverse  ;  for  if  Lydia 
left  Thyatira,  and  came  to  Philippi,  and  set  up 
a  dying  establishment  that  needed  journeymen, 
and  went  to  housekeeping  with  her  "  partners" 
or  "journeymen,"  or  both,  then  /say,  it  is  ex- 
tremely improbable  that  she  would  have  left  any 
,part  of  her  family  at  Thyatira,  much  less  her 
"  infant  offspring."  However  inconvenient  it 
might  be  to  a  mother  to  bring  her  children  such 
a  distance,  yet  with  a  mother's  heart,  she  would 
doubtless  find  it  much  more  inconvenient  to 
have  them  so  far  from  her. 

The  editor  of  Calmet,  Facts  and  Evidences, 
pp.  13,  14,  has  proved  that  otKog,  the  v/ord  used 
in  the  passage,  when  spoken  of  persons,  de- 
notes a  family  of  children — and  includes  chil- 
dren of  all  ages.  And  he  offers  not  only  ffty 
examples  to  prove  it,  but  says  that  "  three  hun- 
dred instances  have  been  examined,  and  have 
proved  perfectly  satisfactory." 

The  same  writer  says,  that  when  the  sacred 
writers  include  servants,  and  the  whole  domes- 
tic establishment,  they  use  the  word  oiKia,  and 
the  passage  above  should  be  read,  "  And  when 
she  was  baptized  and  her  family."  Lydia,  then, 
had  a  family  of  children ;  and  these  children 
were  baptized  at  the  same  time  with  their 
mother. 


58  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Again,  as  this  woman  appears  not  to  have 
been  past  the  meridian  of  life,  the  presumption 
is  that  part  of  those  children  were  young.  What 
Mr.  B.  says  about  those  persons  who  consti- 
tuted Lydia's  family  being  the  brethren  spoken 
of  in  the  fortieth  verse  who  were  comforted  by 
Paul  and  Silas,  when  examined  a  little,  will 
appear  destitute  even  of  probability.  He  asks, 
with  an  air  of  triumph,  "  Can  these  things  be 
said  with  propriety  of  unconscious  babes  ?"  I 
answer.  No, — and  there  is  no  necessity  that  they 
should  be  so  applied.  Reader,  if  you  will  look 
at  A^erses  16,  18,  you  will  find  that  the  apostles 
held  public  meetings  in  Philippi  ^^  many  days" 
after  Lydia's  conversion  before  they  were  cast 
into  prison ;  and  during  all  that  time  exercised 
their  ministry  unmolested,  until  they  cast  the 
spirit  of  divination  out  of  a  "  girl ;"  which  cir- 
cumstance led  to  the  imprisonment  of  Paul  and 
Silas.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  many  were 
converted  at  these  meetings  ;  especially  as  Paul, 
in  his  epistle  to  this  church,  represents  them  as 
having  lived  in  fellowship  m  the  gospel  "  from 
THE  FIRST  DAY,"  Phil,  i,  5.  And,  moreover, 
there  were  two  of  the  apostolic  company  who 
were  not  in  the  prison  with  Paul  and  Silas,  as 
you  w^ill  see  by  examining  the  context.  The 
company  consisted  at  least  of — 1st,  Timothy; 
2d,  Paul ;  3d,  Silas  ;  4th,  Luke.  They  lodged 
at  the  house  of  Lydia,  until  Paul  and  Silas 
were  cast  into  prison.  On  the  day  after  they 
were  released  from  their  imprisonment,  "  they 
entered  into  the   house  of  Lydia :    and  when 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  59 

they  had  seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them 
and  departed."  This  verse  does  not  so  much 
as  intimate  that  "  the  brethren"  were  Lydia's 
family.  When  the  intelUgence  of  the  release 
of  the  apostles  from  prison  was  noised  abroad, 
of  course  the  whole  of  the  brethren,  Timothy, 
Luke,  and  others,  would  repair  to  Paul's  lodgings 
to  see  him ;  and  when  he  had  given  them  his 
farewell  benediction,  he  departed. 

Once  more,  on  this  case  of  family  baptism. 
It  will  be  urged,  there  is  no  positive  proof  that 
there  Avere  infants  in  the  family  of  Lydia.  True, 
and  there  is  no  positive  proof  that  there  were 
any  adults  besides  Lydia  herself.  "  But  here 
is  positive  proof  of  the  baptism  of  children,  and 
a  family  of  children,  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  baptism  of  the  parent,  Avithout  a  hint 
being  dropped  respecting  their  faith,  conversion, 
or  consent,  or  even  of  their  attending  to  the 
things  spoken  of  Paul ;  though  the  account  con- 
tains a  detail  of  the  parents'  conversion,  in  such 
a  way,  that  their  conversion  could  not  well  have 
escaped  notice  had  it  actually  taken  place." 

"  It  will  not  be  contended,  we  presume,  by 
the  Baptists,  that  any  adults  Avere  baptized  of 
whose  faith  Ave  have  not  good  proof,  for  this 
Avould  destroy  the  Avhole  fabric  of  'belicA^ers* 
baptism.'  When,  therefore,  we  find  children 
baptized  of  AA'hose  faith  Ave  have  no  proof  at 
all,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  children 
Avere  not  baptized  by  the  apostles  on  the  same 
grounds  as  adults." 

'.'  If  the  sacred  writers  have  taken  care  to 


60  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AND 

apprize  us  of  the  previous  faith  of  all  the  adults 
who  received  baptism,  in  order  that  succeeding 
ministers  might  not  mistake  in  giving  the  ordi- 
nance to  an  adult  unbeliever  ;  did  it  not  equally 
behoove  them,  if  they  required  the  same  quali- 
fications in  children,  to  use  the  same  care  in 
notifying  their  faith,  with  the  record  of  their 
reception  of  the  ordinance?  And  as,  in  fact, 
they  have  not  done  this,  does  it  not  necessarily 
follow,  that  faith  in  children  is  not  a  necessary 
qualification  ?" — D.  Isaac,  p.  185. 

In  fact,  we  never  should  have  known  that 
Lydia  had  a  family,  were  they  not  incidentally 
mentioned  as  accompanying  her  in  baptism  : — 
"  And  when  she  was  baptized  and  her  family." 
Insert  her  baptism,  we  find  her  family;  omit 
her  baptism,  she  has  no  family  recorded :  the 
act  of  her  baptism  cannot  be  separated  from 
that  of  her  family.  Now  if  her  family  were  of 
mature  age,  capable  of  "  attention  to  the  word 
spoken,"  capable  of  having  their  hearts  opened, 
capable  of  believing,  how  is  it  that  they  are  not 
mentioned  together  with  her,  as  attending,  &c., 
since  they  are  mentioned  together  with  her  as 
receiving  baptism  1  Surely,  Luke  did  not  think 
their  being  baptized  a  more  important  fact  than 
their  having  "  their  hearts  opened,"  &c.,  so  that 
he  should  mention  the  one  and  omit  the  other : 
but  I  shall  be  told,  we  are  to  infer  their  repent' 
ance  and  faith  from  the  fact  of  their  baptism. 
Our  opponents  are  as  glad  to  be  allowed  an 
inference  sometimes  as  their  neighbours.  But, 
if  their  conversion  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  61 

of  their  baptism,  then  might  the  cotiversion  of 
the  mother  be  inferred  from  her  baptism,  and 
there  was  no  necessity  that  Luke  should  have 
detailed  the  circumstances  of  her  change;  we 
might  have  settled  the  whole  matter  by  inference, 
as  well  as  a  part  of  it.  And  as  he  detailed  the 
circumstances  of  the  conversion  of  the  mother, 
and  said  nothing  of  the  family,  only  that  they 
were  baptized  with  her,  the  inference,  we  think, 
in  the  minds  of  all  vf\\o  have  not  a  theory  to 
support  by  rejecting  the  evidence,  must  be  irre- 
sistible, that  they  did  not  receive  baptism  on 
the  same  conditions  that  Lydia  did,  but  were 
made  disciples  by  baptism,  that  they  might  be 
taught  "  the  things  belonging  to  the  '  kingdom 
of  God.' " 

The  cases  of  the  household  of  Stephanus, 
1  Cor.  i,  16,  and  the  household  of  the  Philip- 
pian  jailer,  Acts  xvi,  33,  we  shall  not  dwell 
upon.  One  remark  or  two  on  this  last  men- 
tioned case,  and  we  shall  proceed. 

Our  Baptist  friends  have  often  attempted  to 
do  away  the  evidence  drawn  from  this  case,  as 
Mr.  B.  does,  Sermon,  p.  10,  by  referring  to  that 
part  of  the  passage  which  says,  that  they  spake 
to  him  the  word  of  the  Lord  and  to  all  that  were 
in  his  house,  and  that  he  rejoiced,  believing  in 
God,  with  all  his  house,  &c.  The  preaching 
evidently  took  place  in  the  outer  jyrison,  w^here 
Paul  and  Silas  were,  before  they  were  thrust 
into  the  inner  prison;  "and  they  spake  to  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  Ver.  32.     Here  the  word  ocKta  is  used. 


62  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

which  includes  the  buildings  occupied  by  the 
servants  and  prisoners,  as  well  as  those  appro- 
priated to  the  use  of  the  family.  See  Mr.  Tay- 
lor's Facts  and  Evidences.  When  St.  Paul 
says,  ver.  31,  "  Thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy 
house,"  he  uses  another  word,  otKog,  which  in- 
cludes the  parents  and  children.  Hence,  when 
he  believed,  we  find,  ver.  33,  "  he  was  baptized, 
and  all  his,  straightway^  And  suppose  his 
family  did  rejoice  with  him,  there  might  still 
be  infants  in  it.  Have  you  never  read,  "  Out 
of  the  mouth  of  hahes  and  sucklings  thou  hast 
perfected  praise  ?" 

It  would  be  well  if  our  Baptist  friends  would 
seriously  consider  this  case  in  the  light  of  truth 
and  the  spirit  of  candour.  Though  the  servants 
and  prisoners  together  must  have  amounted  to 
several  persons,  and  though  the  family  was 
imdoubtedly  numerous,  yet  we  do  not  read  of 
any  one  besides  him,  and  all  his,  being  bap- 
tized. If  we  suppose,  with  a  Baptist,  that  the 
whole  of  the  jailer's  family  were  converted 
mider  this  sermon,  it  would  be  one  of  the  most 
singular  circumstances  which  the  history  of  the 
church  has  furnished,  that  the  loork  of  conversion 
should  stop  just  there ; — not  one  of  all  his  family 
left ;  not  one  of  all  the  rest  taken. 

Allow,  the  children  icere  baptized  on  the  ground 
of  their  father's  faith,  and  all  the  mystery  and 
difficulty  of  the  passage  vanishes  at  once. — 
D.  Isaac,  p.  192. 

One  thing  at  least  is  certain,  that  the  jailer 
and  his  family  were  not  baptized  according  to 


.MODE    OF   BAl'TItiM.  63 

tlie  practice  among  the  Baptists  of  modern 
times.  For  we  learn  from  the  passage,  that 
"  they  were  baptized  the  same  hour  of  the 
night."  No  such  case  can  be  found  in  the 
history  of  those  who  deny  infant  baptism. 
There  are  four  reasons  why  a  Baptist  minister 
would  not  have  baptized  the  jailer  and  his 
family,  as  the  apostles  did,  after  about  half  an 
hour's  teaching. 

1st,  He  would  not  have  deemed  them  suffi- 
ciently instructed.  They  were  all  idolaters  an 
hour  before. 

2d,  They  could  not  have  furnished  the  re- 
quired evidences  of  their  being  the  subjects  of 
a  gracious  change.  It  is  common  for  Baptists  to 
delay  baptism  for  weeks,  sometimes  for  months. 

3d,  The  concurrence  of  the  church  could  not 
be  had.  Lydia  and  "  the  brethren"  must  have 
been  consulted. 

4th,  There  was  no  opportunity  for  a  public 
profession  of  Christianity,  where  the  "  imposing 
ordinance'^  could  be  witnessed. 

I  judge  that  the  "  pattern"  St.  Paul  worked 
by  differed  in  several  respects  from  the  pattern 
of  those  who  hold  nothing  hut  believers^  haptism. 

Perhaps  we  could  show  (if  we  were  disposed 
to  cavil  and  find  fault  with  our  neighbours)  that 
the  practice  of  our  Baptist  friends  differs  very 
widely  from  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  as  we 
find  theirs  detailed  in  the  Acts. 

We  have  dwelt  longer  on  the  baptism  of 
famihes  than  we  intended.  We  shall  therefore 
proceed  to  other  evidence  for  infant  baptism. 


64  OBLIGATIOiN,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

We  next  adduce  what  our  Lord  says,  Mark 
X,  13-16  ;  Luke  xviii,  15  ;  Matt,  xix,  13  :  "  Suf- 
fer the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  fur- 
bid  them  not;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God. ''^ 
With  this  passage  Mr.  B.  seems  somewhat  per- 
plexed, for  he  endeavours  to  make  it  appear 
that  those  children  might  have  been  capable 
of  believing.  Sermon,  p.  13,  and  Strict.,  p.  8, 
he  says,  "  I  am  led  to  doubt  exceedingly  whether 
the  children  brought  to  Jesus  were  unconscious 
babes,  or  Avhether  there  ever  were  any  uncon- 
scious infants  brought  to  Jesus."  Now  /  suppose, 
if  they  had  been  capable  of  "  believing,"  as  Mr. 
B.  supposes,  then  neither  the  disciples  nor  even  a 
Baptist  preacher  woidd  have  rebuked  those  that 
brought  them,  or  have  '^forbidden  the  children ;" 
as  believers  are  not  only  capable  of  being 
".blessed,"  but  have  a  right  to  baptism,  accord- 
ing to  our  opponents.  Luke  says  they  were 
"  infants."  I  presume  their  infants  were  about 
as  '^'■unconscious"  as  our  infants.  How  ridicu- 
lous it  is  to  see  a  man  come  with  "  Schrevelius's 
Lexicon,"  or  any  other  Lexicon,  in  his  hand,  to 
tell,  or  prove  to  plain  people,  that  although  Mark 
says  they  were  "  young  children',''  and  Jesus 
calls  them  "  little  children"  and  Matthew  calls 
them  "  little  children"  and  Luke  says  they  were 
"  infants,"  and  they  all  say  "  they  were  brought" 
to  Jesus,  and  "  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms"  and 
put  his  hands  on  them,  "ye/'  there  never  ivcre 
any  unconscious  infants  brought  to  Jesus  !" 

In  his  Strictures,  Mr.  B.  has  tried  one  mode 
of  evading  this  case ;  and  in  his  sermon,  another 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  65 

mode,  both  equally  absurd,  and  going  alike  to 
show  how  very  obnoxious  the  case  of  those 
children  is  to  the  Baptist  cause. 

The  phrase  "  kingdom  of  God,"  and  "  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  used  by  the  evangelists, 
Mattkeio,  Mark,  and  Luke,  I  hold  to  mean,  ge?ie' 
rally,  the  church  under  the  gospel  dispensation : 
"  The  kingdom  which  (Daniel  said)  the  God  of 
heaven  was  to  set  up  at  the  end  of  the  seventy 
weeks,"  represented  in  the  vision  by  the  "  little 
stone  taken  out  of  the  mountain  without  hands," 
Dan.  ii,  44,  45.  I  am  not  only  supported  ia 
this  view  by  critics  generally,  but  also  by  that 
famous  Baptist  preacher,  Robert  Hall.  His 
words  are — "  The  kingdom  of  God,  a  phrase 
which  is  constantly  employed  in  Scripture  to 
denote  that  state  of  things  which  is  placed 
under  the  avowed  administration  of  the  Mes- 
siah."—Hall's  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  372.  Now 
Christ  says,  "  Of  such  ('infants,'  'little  chil- 
dren') is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  says  to  the 
adults  who  were  present,  "  Verily  I  say  unto 
you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom 
of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter 
therein."  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  while 
the  disciples  forbid  the  children,  and  rebuked 
those  that  brought  them,  the  Master  "  was 
much  displeased"  with  those  knovying  adults^ 
and  took  the  infants  in  his  bosom,  and  gave 
them  his  blessing.  A  Baptist  may  ask,  "  How 
could  an  infant  be  blessed?"  they  are  "  uncon- 
scious," "  why  should  infants  be  forced  without 
their  choice"  to  Christ,  and  have  his  blessing 
5 


66  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

put  upon  them  "  without  their  consent?"  "  They 
might  choose  to  reject  Christ  when  they  become 
aduhs."  These,  and  a  thousand  other  questions 
might  be  asked.  But  the  how  and  the  lohy  is 
not  the  matter  to  be  settled  by  us  ;  here  are  the 
facts,  "  he  took  them  in  his  arms,"  "  he  blessed 
them ;"  he  said,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God."  It  is  very  doubtful  with  me  whether 
Mr.  B.'s  "  extreme  doubts"  on  the  subject,  even 
with  the  use  of  his  "  Lexicon,"  will  invalidate, 
in  the  minds  of  my  readers,  the  force  of  these 
facts.     It  is  hard  to  reason  against  facts. 

But  suppose,  for  argument  sake,  that  the 
"  kingdom  of  God"  means  the  kingdom  of  glory, 
our  opponents  gain  nothing  by  it ;  then  the 
children  are  fit  for  heaven,  and,  I  suppose,  are 
fit  for  the  church  on  earth.  What  Mr.  B.  says 
in  his  Strictures  about  angels  being  unfit  for  a 
place  in  the  gospel  church  is  altogether  gratui- 
tous ; — where  is  it  written  1  He  admits.  Strict., 
p.  8,  that  "  the  blood  of  Jesus  may  be  applied 
to  children,"  fitting  them  for  heaven :  and  still 
he  says,  "  they  are  fitted  by  an  infiuence  that 
never  fits  men  for  the  gospel  kingdom^  This 
sseems  like  very  strange  doctrine.  I  suppose 
Mr.  B.  holds  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in 
opposition  to  Pelagius  ;  if  so,  infants  need  an 
application  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  to  purify,  or 
make  them  holy ;  then  the  question  occurs, 
How  is  this  blood  applied  ?  The  Scriptures  at- 
tribute the  work  uniformly  to  the  Holy  Spirit : 
hence  the  angel  said,  Luke  i,  15,  of  John  the 
Baptist,  that  "  he  shall  be  filled  with  the  Holy 


MODE  OF  BAI'TISM.  67 

Ghost,  even  from  his  mother's  womb."  Now, 
candid  reader,  do  you  know  of  any  other  way 
to  fit  men  for  the  gospel  church,  or  the  kingdom 
of  glory,  than  by  an  application  of  "  the  blood 
of  Jesus,  through  the  eternal  Spirit  V  We  read 
of  but  one  song  among  the  redeemed  in  heaven  ; 
they  all  were  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Jesus, 
and  all  sino  one  song. 

Infants,  who  are  in  a  state  of  justification, 
Rom.  V,  18,  consequently  not  guilty,  having 
never  committed  actual  or  personal  transgres- 
sion, are  made  the  model  for  adults  :  "  Except 
ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children ;" 
"  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God,  as  a  little  child,"  &c.  Yet  our  Baptist 
friends  admit  the  adults,  who  are  formed  on  the 
model,  and  reject  the  children,  who  are  the  model 
by  Avhich  the  qualifications  of  the  adult  are  set 
forth.     Strange  !  passing  strange  ! 

We  shall  be  told,  however,  "  they  were  not 
baptized,  but  blessed;"  v/here  is  the  proof? 
"  They  were  to  be  received  in  the  name  of 
Christ."  "  They  were  not  to  be  forbidden  to 
come  to  him."  The  Baptists  say,  all  were  to 
come  to  him  in  his  church  by  baptism.  I  there- 
fore infer  they  were  baptized,  and  I  have  just 
as  much  evidence  of  the  baptism  of  those  chil- 
dren as  any  Baptist  can  find  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment of  the  baptism  of  St,  Peter  and.  St.  John  ; 
for  I  have  never  seen  any  evidence  that  Christ 
ever  applied  water  to  them  hut  once,  and  then 
be  only  washed  their  feet.  An  objector  will 
say,   But  we  infer  they  were  baptized.     Very 


68  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

good.  You  will  allow  me  the  same  liberty. 
/  infer  those  children  were  baptized,  for  surely 
they  obtained  some  grace,  when  it  is  said,  "  he 
blessed  thcm.'^  This  is  more  than  can  be  said 
with  truth  of  many  an  adult  church  member. 
See  Watson's  Exp.  on  Matt,  xix,  13,  14. 

The  Epistles  were  written  to  the  churches, 
and  were  to  be  read  in  the  churches ;  and  chil- 
dren— young  children — are  addressed,  and  ap- 
propriate instruction  given  them,  equally  with 
fathers,  wives,  servants,  &c.  We  shall  be  told 
they  were  not  "  unconscious  babes."  They 
were  so  young  that  they  were  "  yet  to  be 
brought  up,^^  and  were  not  to  be  '■'■  provoked''^  by 
their  parents,  lest  they  should  be  "  discouraged." 
They  had  been  "  baptized  into  Christ ;" — into 
bis  kingdom  as  subjects, — into  his  school  as 
scholars,  or  disciples, — and  were  to  "  obey  their 
parents  in  the  Lord  i?i  all  thi?igs"  and  to  be 
"  brought  up  in  the  instruction  and  discipline 
of  the  Lord."  Surely  such  were  not  adult  be- 
lievers. When  was  a  Baptist  church  seen  that 
had  persons  in  it  that  needed  bringing  up  ? 

There  is  no  precedent  in  Scripture  with  re- 
gard to  the  particular  age  at  which  the  ordinance 
ought  to  be  given,  except  one.  That  is  the  case 
of  Jesus,  "  who  began  to  be  about  thirty  years 
of  age."  We  suppose  "  our  friends,"  who  talk 
so  much  of  "  following  Jesus  down  to  Jordan," 
and  "  fulfilling  all  righteousness,"  would  hardlv 
recommend  all  persons  to  defer  baptism  until 
the  age  of  thirty — although  this  is  a  part  of 
Christ's    example.      More    of    this    hereafter. 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  69 

When  they  tell  iis  we  cannot  find  the  word 
"  infant"  in  connection  with  baptism  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  therefore  have  no  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord"  for  it — '•  no  Scripture  precedent" — I 
answer,  They  cannot  find  the  words  boy,  girl, 
old  man,  young  man,  yet  they  occasionally 
baptize  some  of  each.  This  is  very  much  like 
a  man  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  be- 
cause he  does  not  find  the  word  Trinity  in  the 
Scriptures. 

I  shall  produce  one  more  evidence  from  the 
Scriptures,  1  Cor.  vii,  14  :  "  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,"  &c.,  "  else 
were  your  children  unclean  ;  but  now  are  they 
holy."  Mr.  B.  has  given.  Sermon,  pp.  12,  13, 
a  caricature  of  the  argument  of  Pedobaptists  on 
this  passage.  He  says,  "  Some  of  them  con- 
tend that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized,  because 
they  are  pure,  and  others  contend  that  they  need 
it  because  they  are  impure  ;"  and  then  gravely 
says,  "  but  I  cannot  see  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment." What  argument  ?  If  he  had  taken\s 
much  pains  to  present  the  Pedobaptist  view  of 
the  passage  as  he  has  to  give  the  fanciful  and 
far-fetched  exposition  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dagg, 
the  reader  might  have  had  some  idea  of  the 
argument  for  infant  baptism  drawn  from  the 
passage. 

In  many  places  in  the  Scriptures  (Exod.  xix, 
6;  Lev.  X,  10;  1  Chron.  xxii,  19;  2  Chron. 
xxiii,  6  ;  Ezek.  xxii,  26  ;  Luke  ii,  23  ;  Acts  x, 
28,  and  xi,  8,  9  ;  Heb.  ix,  13)  the  word  "holy" 
is  applied  to  things  or  persons,  separated  from 


70  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

common,  and  devoted  to  religions  nses  ;  sepa- 
rated from  the  world  and  devoted  to  God :  and 
is  often  applied  to  the  visible  church,  under 
different  dispensations.  Hence  the  Jews  are 
called  a  "  holy  people  ;"  and  Peter  calls  the 
Christian  church  "  a  holy  nation."  They  were 
so,  professionally,  being  "  separated  from  the 
world  to  God  ;"  although  each  individual  mem- 
ber was  not  "  intrinsically  liolyP 

While  our  opponents  say  that  the  word 
"  holy,"  as  applied  to  the  children  in  the  text, 
signifies  that  they  were  "  legitimate"  children, 
they  do  not  pretend  to  furnish  a  single  text  from 
the  Scriptures  where  the  word  has  that  sense  ; 
while  they  expect  us  to  take  their  interpretation 
without  proof,  the  good  Mr.  Baxter  has  shown, 
(Baxter's  Inf.  Oh.  Membership.)  that  in  near 
six  hundred  places  in  the  Bible,  the  word  has 
the  sense  which  I  have  given  it  above,  i.  e.,  "  a 
separation  to  God"  This  eyidence,  I  should 
think,  must  be  decisive  with  all  who  do  not 
interpret  Scripture  by  a  creed,  but  are  content 
to  take  their  creed  out  of  the  Scriptures.  If, 
then,  the  children  of  Christians  are  "holy," 
i.  e.,  "  separated  to  God,"  are  they  separated  to 
God  in  the  church,  or  out  of  it  ?  If  it  is  replied. 
They  are  separated  to  him  in  the  church;  then 
they  must  be  church  members,  and  that  is  what 
we  wish  to  prove  ;  if,  on  the  other  hand,  it  be 
replied.  They  are  "  separated  to  God"  in  the 
world ;  then  truly  they  present  an  anomalous 
case,  they  are  truly  "  peculiar."  They  do  not 
belong  to  the  church,  they  do  not  belong  to  the 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  71 

world.  "  The  church  is  in  Christ ;" — "  the 
world  lieth  in  the  wicked  one,"  but  those  hap- 
less children  are  in  neither ;  they  neither  be- 
long to  God  nor  the  devil ! 

If  they  are  not  "  unclean"  but  "  holy,"  the 
apostle  clearly  establishes,  or  asserts,  a  distinc- 
tion between  the  children  of  heathens,  who  1 
were  unclean,  and  devoted  to  heathen  gods, 
and  the  children  of  professing  Christians,  which 
were  separated  and  devoted  to  God.  "  The 
unbelieving  husband  (being  one  flesh  with  the 
believing  wife)  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,"  and 
vice  versa;  so  that  the  children  are  not  "un- 
clean," or  left  in  a  heathen  state,  but  "  separated 
to  God"  with  the  believing  parent.  I  am  sup- 
ported in  this  opinion  by  the  learned  Whitby. 
His  language  is — "  And  though  one  of  the  pa- 
rents be  still  a  heathen,  yet  is  the  denomination 
to  be  taken  from  the  better,  and  so  their  off- 
.spring  are  to  be  esteemed,  not  as  heathens, 
i.  e.,  unclean,  but  holy,  as  all  Christians  by 
denomination  are."  See  Whitby  on  the  place. 
Clemens  Alexandrinus  held  the  same  view  of 
tliis  passage.  "Hence,  then,"  says  Whitby, 
"  the  argument  for  infant  baptism  runs  thus : 
If  the  holy  seed  among  the  Jews  was  therefore 
to  be  circumcised,  and  be  made  federally  holy, 
by  receiving  the  sign  of  the  covenant,  and 
being  admitted  into  the  number  of  God's  '  holy 
people,'  because  they  were  born  in  sanctity, 
or  were  seminally  holy ;  for  the  root  being  holy, 
so  are  the  branches  also;  then,  by  like  reason, 
the  holy  seed  of  Christians  ought  to  be  admitted 


72  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

to  baptism,  and  receive  the  sign  of  the  Christian 
covenant." 

What  merit  "  Mr.  Dagg's  Exposition"  may- 
possess  as  a  whole,  I  am  unprepared  to  say, 
but  the  specimen  Mr.  B.  has  given  of  it  surely 
does  not  present  it  in  a  very  favourable  light. 
Hear  him  :  "  If  a  believing  husband  must  leave 
his  wife  because  she  is  an  unbeliever,  for  the 
same  reason  your  offspring  must  be  cast  ofT; 
for  they  would,  upon  the  principle  herein  in- 
volved, he  as  unclean,  on  account  of  unbelief  ,  to 
the  believing  parents,  as  an  unbelieving  husband 
or  wife  would  be  to  the  other  who  is  a  believer." 
But  perhaps  Mr.  B.  may  bring  a  Lexicon  to 
prove  that  the  term  translated  "  children"  means 
"  posterity."  Certainly  it  does,  and  so  includes 
the  youngest  infants.  Now,  although  Mr.  D. 
and  Mr.  B.  both  talk  about  infants  or  children 
•'  being  in  unbelief^  one  says,  they  are  "  unclean 
on  account  of  unbelief,"  the  other  says,  "  infants 
are  baptized  in  unbelief"  I  should  like  those 
gentlemen  to  furnish  one  single  text  of  Scripture 
where  either  children  or  infants  have  unbelief 
attributed  to  them,  or  are  said  to  be  "  in  un- 
belief" There  is  a  manifest  discrepancy,  not 
to  say  a  flat  contradiction,  in  the  language  used 
by  Mr.  B.  in  his  Strictures,  p.  10,  and  in  his 
Sermon,  pp.  7  and  26.  When  reasoning,  in  the 
Strictures,  on  the  salvation  of  infants,  he  says, 
"  The  gospel  cannot  condemn  them,  because 
they  cannot  he  guilty  of  the  sin  of  unbelief ''  In 
his  sermon,  when  he  wants  to  exclude  them 
from  the  rite  of  baptism,  he  says,  "  I  will  engage 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  73 

to  prove,  my  hearers,  that  the  commission  act- 
ually excludes  all  unbelievers,  xchether  unconscious 
infants  or  unbelieving  adults."  Again  he  says, 
"  Thousands  of  believers  omit  it,  (i.  e.,  baptism,) 
because  they  were  baptized  while  m  unbelief!  /" 
I  think  this  needs  a  salvo  ;  there  is,  at  least,  "  a 
glorious  uncertainty''^  about  it. 

We  have  seen,  from  the  evidence  produced 
above,  that  the  children  of  those  Corinthians 
were  not  *'  unclean,"  but  "holy;"  and  as  no  in- 
stance can  be  given  of  a  person  being  called 
holy  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  visible 
church  of  God,  the  inference  is  undeniable 
that  holy  infants  belonged  to  the  visible  church 
of  Christ. 

"  Having  thus  established  their  membership, 
I  shall  take  their  baptism  for  granted,  till  our 
Baptist  brethren  admit  people  into  their  churches 
without  the  ordinance." — D.  Isaac,  p.  164. 

Mr.  B.  asks  a  question  on  this  point,  which  I 
must  say  a  word  in  reply  to.  "  Was  baptism 
designed  for  the  benefit  of  holy  beings  ?  The 
commission  in  that  case  ought  to  be  read.  Go 
ye,  &c,,  and  baptize  all  you  find  who  are  holy. 
Upon  that  plan,  all  adults  would  be  excluded, 
seeing  all  adults  are  sinners."  He  says,  Ser- 
mon, p.  2.3,  "  Baptism  brings  us,  after  regenera- 
tion, into  the  visible  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Are  they  "  regenerated.,^^  and  yet  sinners — "  buried 
with  Christ  in  baptism,"  and  yet  sinners — "  cru- 
cified with  Christ,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be 
destroyed,^''  and  yet  sinners  ?  The  apostle  says, 
"their  children  were  holy;"  and  take  Mr.  B.^s 


74  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

interpretation  of  the  word,  and  say  they  were 
holy  in  the  longest,  broadest,  highest  sense  of 
that  word,  even  then,  I  suppose,  candid  reader, 
you  will  admit  that  holiness  would  furnish  as 
valid  a  reason  for  ^^  baptism'^  as  "sin"  especially 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  holiness  of  the  "  holy 
Jesus"  did  not  disqualify  him  for  baptism ! ! 

We  remark  in  evidence,  further,  the  antiquity 
of  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  may  be  consi- 
dered as  strong  evidence  on  the  subject.  If  the 
baptism  of  children  was  not  practised  by  the 
apostles  and  by  the  primitive  Christians,  when 
and  where  did  the  practice  commence  ? 

To  this  question  Baptist  writers  generally  do 
not  attempt  to  give  an  answer,  because  they 
cannot.  It  is  an  innovation,  say  they,  not  upon 
the  circumstances  of  a  sacrament,  but  upon  its 
essential  principle.  And  yet  its  introduction 
produced  no  struggle  ;  was  never  noticed  by 
any  general  or  provincial  council ;  and  excited 
no  controversy.  This  itself  is  strong  presump- 
tive evidence  of  its  early  antiquity. 

Our  Baptist  friends,  from  time  to  time,  have 
attempted  to  find  its  origin.  Mr.  B.  says,  Ser- 
mon, p.  27,  it  was  introduced  by  the  Romish 
apostacy,  and  "  calls  on  all  candid  Pedobaptist 
Protestants,  as  they  would  desire  the  world  to 
be  delivered  from  the  abominations  of  popery, 
to  abandon  this  popish  ceremony."  This  re- 
minds me  of  the  famous  argument  of  some 
people  against  the  doctrines  of  Christ's  divinity, 
and  the  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead ; 
that  they  ought  to  be  rejected  by  Protestants, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  75 

because  they  were  a  part  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Query :  Is  this  the 
cause  why  such  large  bodies  of  men,  who  have 
denied  infant  baptism  at  different  periods,  in 
Germany,  Poland,  &c.,  have  been  Socinians?!! 
See  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  pp. 
172-175. 

I  suppose  that  it  is  the  part  of  charity  and 
candour  to  "  rejoice  in  the  truth^''  whether  that 
truth  be  found  among  Protestants  or  Catholics — ■ 
with  Luther  or  the  pope.  Unfortunately  for  our 
Baptist  friends,  however,  infant  baptism  is  not 
only  foimd  with  Luther  and  the  pope,  but  with 
the  Greek  Church,  that  never  had  any  connec- 
tion with  the  pope,  from  the  earliest  periods  of 
her  history.  And  if,  as  the  Baptists  say,  (Be- 
nedict's Hist,  of  the  Baptists,  pp.  58-60,)  infant 
baptism  was  introduced  in  Africa  from  the  first 
to  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  confined  at 
first  to  catechised  minors,  and  in  about  forty 
years  decided  to  be  the  right  of  infants  by  an 
ecclesiastical  council,  how  did  it  happen  that 
there  was  but  little  more  said  on  the  subject 
until  the  year  416?  And  how  did  it  happen 
that  although  the  Vandals  overran  that  part  of 
Africa  about  "  the  year  429,  and  the  Catholics 
fled  into  Europe,  carrying  infant  baptism  with 
them,"  "  that  its  entrance  into  Europe  was  of  a 
later  date,"  and  "  the  first  ecclesiastical  canon 
in  Europe  on  the  subject  was"  as  late  as  "  the 
sixth  century?"  "  And  the  first  imperial  law  on 
the  subject  in  the  eighth  century,  by  the  empe- 
ror Charlemagne  ?" 


76  OELIGATIOX,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Mr.  Jiidson  supposed  that  infant  baptism  was 
introduced  toward  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury— while  Mr.  Broaddus  considers  it  a  relic 
of  popery;  although  popery  did  not  exist,  as 
such,  until'  after  the  sixth  century.  This  is 
only  a  differenco  of  opinion  between  two  Bap- 
tist preachers,  each  rejecting  infant  baptism ; 
one  dating  its  origin  only  four  hundred  years 
later  than  the  other.  No  marvel  that  we  should 
differ  from  them,  when  they  cannot  agree 
among  themselves,  on  the  origin  of  so  great  an 
innovation  upon  '■'■gospel  order P 

Now  we  would  ask  Mr.  Benedict,  and  our 
Baptist  friends,  where  were  the  Baptist  churches 
all  this  time?  The  descendants  of  "their  an- 
cient brother,"  John  the  Baptist ;  were  there 
none  found  faithful  among  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, to  utter  the  voice  of  warning  on  the  sub- 
ject of  this  great  innovation  ?  There  was  none 
found,  candid  reader,  to  object,  except  Tertul- 
lian,  and  he  objected  as  much  to  the  baptism 
of  "  unmarried  believers"  as  he  did  to  infants  ; 
and  admitted  the  validity  of  "  infant  baptism" 
where  there  was  danger  of  death.  Of  course, 
then,  he  was  not  a  Baptist. 

Mr.  Benedict  says.  History,  page  92,  "We 
date  the  origin  of  our  sentiments,  and  the  be- 
ginning of  our  denomination,  about  the  year  of 
our  Lord  29  or  30 ;  for  at  that  period  John  the 
Baptist  began  to  immerse  professed  believers 
in  Jordan  and  Enon,  and  to  prepare  the  way  for 
the  coming  of  the  Lord's  anointed,  and  for  the 
setting  up   of  his  kingdom."     It  is  generally 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  77 

admitted  that  John  baptized  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands. If  this  was  the  origin  of  the  Baptist 
denomination,  what  became  of  all  those  thou- 
sands for  about  twelve  hundred  years,  that  there 
was  none  found  to  demur  at  infant  baptism  ? ! 
Surely  they  could  not  have  been  in  existence 
in  Christendom,  or  they  did  not  look  upon  the 
baptism  of  "unconscious  babes"  in  the  same 
light  that  modern  Baptists  do  ;  one  or  the  other 
of  these  conclusions  we  think  inevitably  true. 
Mr.  Broaddus,  Sermon,  pp.  21,  22,  attempts  to 
dispose  of  the  "  testimony  of  the  fathers"  in  a 
very  summary  manner ;  and  in  support  of  his 
views  quotes  Dr.  Hill.  Now  if  the  "  testimony 
of  the  fathers"  having  been  in  the  keeping  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  is  sufficient  reason,  as 
those  gentlemen  suppose,  why  it  should  be 
rejected,  I  would  ask,  if  the  infidel  might  not 
urge  the  same  reason  against  his  receiving  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures  ?  The  classing 
"  infant  baptism"  with  "  infant  communion," 
transubstantiation,  &c.,  is  altogether  gratuitous. 
It  stands  on  different  grounds. 

Let  us  hear  on  this  subject  the  sentiment  of 
the  intelligent  and  candid  Baptist  writer,  Dr. 
Gale.  He  says,  "  I  will  grant  it  is  probable, 
that  what  all  or  most  of  the  churches  practised 
immediately  after  the  apostles'  times  had  been 
appointed  or  practised  by  the  apostles  them- 
selves ;  for  it  is  hardly  to  be  imagined  that  any 
considerable  body  of  these  ancient  Christians, 
and  much  less  that  the  whole,  should  so  soon 
deviate  from  the   customs  and  injunctions  of 


78  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

their  venerable  founders,  whose  authority  they 
held  so  sacred.  New  opinions  or  practices  are 
usually  introduced  by  degrees,  and  not  without 
opposition.  Therefore,  in  regard  to  baptism,  a 
thing  of  such  universal  concern  and  daily  prac- 
tice, I  allow  it  to  be  X)ery  probable  that  the  pri- 
mitive churches  kept  to  the  apostolic  pattern. 
I  verily  believe  that  the  primitive  church  main- 
tained, in  this  case,  an  exact  conformity  to.  the 
practice  of  the  apostles,  which,  doubtless,  agreed 
entirely  with  Christ's  institutions." — See  Gale's 
Reflections  on  Wall,  page  398. 

I  shall  adduce,  now,  tv/o  or  tliree  testimonies 
from  the  fathers,  to  show^  what  was  the  practice 
of  the  primitive  church. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  wrote  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, speaks  of  some  who  were  then  sixty  or 
seventy  years  old,  "  who  were  made  disciples" 
or  members  "in  their  infancy. '"  But  jMr.  B., 
referring  to  his  Lexicon,  says,  Strictures,  p.  7, 
the  word  rendered  "  infant"  may  be  rendered 
youth.  I  shall  not  stop  here  to  dispute  about 
this  word.  Irenseus,  who  wrote  within  sixty- 
seven  years  of  the  apostolic  times,  says, 
"Christ  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself; 
all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are  baptized  unto  God  ; 
infants  and  little  ones,  and  children  and  youths." 
— Dr.  Wall,  Inf.  Bap.,  vol.  i,  ch.  3.  He  is  said 
to  have  been  personally  acquainted  with  Poly- 
carp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  had  heard  him 
preach. 

Origen,  of  the  Greek  Church,  who  was  a 
maa  of  great  learning,  and  acquainted  extea- 


MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  79 

sively  with  the  church,  and  who  had  good  op- 
portunity to  know  the  practice  of  the  apostles, 
as  his  great  grandfather  was  a  Christian,  and 
coteniporary  with  the  apostles,  says,  "  Infants, 
by  the  usage  of  the  church,  are  baptized.  The 
church  had  a  tradition,  or  command,  fro?n  the 
apostles,  to  give  baptism  to  infants.'^ — Wall's 
Defence,  pp.  372,  383  ;  Dr.  Doddridge's  Lect., 
p.  9.  Mr.  Judson  tried  in  vain  to  overturn  this 
testimony. 

Cyprian,  and  the  cou7icil  of  Carthage,  in  the 
year  253,  where  sixty-six  bishops  met,  not  to 
decide  whether  infants  Avere  to  be  baptized, 
but  whether  they  might  be  baptized  before  the 
eighth  day ;  and  they  were  unanimously  of  opi- 
nion, "  that  they  {infants)  might  be  baptized  as 
soon  as  they  were  born." — Cyprian,  epist,  66. 
Lord  Chancellor  King,  in  his  account  of  the 
primitive  church,  remarks,  "  Here,  then,  is  a 
synodical  decree  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  as 
formal  as  can  possibly  be  expected,  which  is 
of  more  weight  than  the  private  judgment  of  a 
father,  and  more  authentic  ;  as  he  might  give 
his  own  opinion  only,  but  this  (the  decision  of 
a  synod)  denotes  the  common  practice  and  usage 
of  the  whole  churchr — Inquiry  into  the  Consti- 
tution, &c.,  part  ii,  ch.  3. 

Pelagius  maintained  infant  baptism,  although 
the  practice  made  against  his  heresy.  He  de- 
nied original  sin — and  was  the  author  of  what 
is  called  Pelagianism.  He  lived  three  hundred 
years  after  the  apostles.  He  says,  "  Men  slan- 
der me,  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of  baptism 


80  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AND 

to  infants.  I  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the 
most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  in- 
fants."—Wall's  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bapt.,  p.  62. 

This  man  had  every  inducement  to  deny 
infant  baptism,  if  he  could  have  found  a  shadow 
of  evidence  to  have  borne  him  out.  The  usage 
of  the  church  in  this  respect  was  a  standing, 
irrefragable  argument  against  his  heresy. 

So  much  for  the  "  testimony  of  the  fathers." 
You  can  judge,  candid  reader,  whether  it  is  to 
be  passed  over  as  nothing  worth,  in  view  of  the 
fact,  that  those  v/ho  "  deny  infant  baptism"  have 
no  evidence  to  put  in  bar. 

The  Christian  church  was  early  divided  in 
sentiment,  on  doctrine,  and  split  into  sects,  who 
ever  kept  upon  each  other  a  watchful  eye  ;  and 
the  "  pattern"  could  not  have  been  so  altered  as 
to  admit  the  universal  prevalence  of  such  an 
innovation,  without  an  alarm  being  given. 

Our  Baptist  friends  try  to  make  out  their  re- 
lationship with  the  Waldenses,  those  witnesses 
for  the  truth  in  the  dark  ages.  I  confess  I  was 
a  little  amused  at  the  attempt  of  Mr.  Benedict, 
in  his  history,  on  this  subject. 

That  Peter  de  Bruis,  and  his  followers,  (who 
were  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  people  called 
Waldenses,)  did  deny  infant  baptism  is  unde- 
niable, but  on  different  grounds  from  our  Baptist 
friends.  This  man  arose  in  France  about  twelve 
hundred  years  after  Christ,  and  held  that  infants 
could  not  be  saved,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  he 
baptized,  "  as  they  could  not  work  out  their  own 
salvation." 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  8l 

They  held  about  the  same  proportion  to  the 
great  body  of  the  Waldenses,  icho  held  infant 
baptism,  as  the  "Seventh-day"  Baptists  do  to 
the  great  body  of  the  Baptists,  who  hold  "the 
Lord's  day"  as  the  sabbath.  If  I  were  to  re- 
port that  the  Baptists  in  the  United  States  keep 
the  "  seA^enth  day"  as  their  sabbath,  I  should 
be  about  as  near  right  as  Baptist  writers  are 
when  they  say  that  the  Waldenses  "  denied 
infant  baptism,"  for  those  luho  have  denied  it 
among  them  have  been  as  about  one  to  thirty. — 
Dr.  Miller  on  Baptism,  pp.  40-43. 

In  an  expose  of  the  views  of  the  Waldenses, 
made  as  early  as  the  twelfth  century,  although 
they  oppose  many  errors  of  the  Romish  Church 
— such  as  praying  to  saints,  purgatory,  masses, 
&c.,  and  say  that  there  are  but  two  sacraments, 
baptism  and  the  Lord''s  supper — yet  they  utter 
not  one  word  against  "  infant  baptism." — Wat- 
son's Diet.,  art,  Waldenses.  They  had  bishops 
among  them;  "and  after  the  opening  of  the 
reformation  under  Luther,  the  Waldenses  sought 
intercourse  with  the  reformed  churches  of  Ge- 
neva and  France  ;  held  communion  ivith  them ; 
received  ministers  from  them ;  acknowledged  them 
as  brethren  in  the  Lord,  (fee.  Now  it  is  well 
known  that  those  churches  held  infant  baptism  ; 
and  this  fact  alone  we  think  sufficient  to  show 
that  those  pious  people  were  Pedobaptists." — 
Dr.  Miller,  p.  43. 

Why  should  those  who  deny  infant  baptism 
wish  to  prove  that  the  Waldenses  were  their 
predecessors  or  ancestors  ?  If  they  could  make 
6 


82  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

this  out,  they  Avould  then  be  nine  hundred  years 
from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist ;  for  Mr.  Be- 
nedict, in  his  History,  can  furnish  no  certain 
eiddence  that  the  Waldenses  had  any  existence 
earlier  than  the  ninth  century.  Let  our  op- 
posing brethren  give  the  world  a  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord"  for  rejecting  infants,  and  then  there 
is  an  end  to  the  controversy.  No  doubt,  from 
the  earliest  history  of  the  Waldenses,  Albi- 
genses,  &c.,  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion 
among  them  on  many  points,  as  there  is  now 
among  different  denominations  of  Christians, 
not  excepting  the  Baptists.  There  may  have 
been  some,  besides  the  followers  of  Peter  de 
Bruis,  who  differed  with  the  great  body  of  their 
brethren,  for  some  reason,  about  infant  baptism ; 
but  surely  this  does  not  justify  an  effort  to  make 
out  that  that  people,  as  a  people,  were  not  Pedo- 
baptists.  I  know  a  number  of  Baptists  who  are 
in  favour  of  free  communion,  and  some  who 
communed  with  Christians  of  other  denomina- 
tions, until  they  endangered  their  membership 
in  their  own  church  thereby ;  and  I  might  show 
from  the  works  of  that  celebrated  man,  John 
Bunyan,  that  he  admitted  members  to  his  com- 
munion who  had  been  baptized  in  infancy,  and 
had  never  received  v/hat  is  called  "  believers' 
baptism," — Bunyan's  Works,  vol.  ii,  pp.  216-21 9. 
But  would  it  be  fair  and  honourable  in  me  to 
draw  a  general  conclusion  from  these  particular 
cases  ?  and  then  say, ''  The  Baptists  in  Virginia 
are  in  favour  of  free  communion  ;  and  the  Bap- 
tists in  Europe,  in  the  days  of  Bunyan,  admitted 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  83 

persons  to  church  fellowship  without  believers* 
baptism  ?"  Surely  nothing  would  be  more  un- 
fair. 

We  have  seen,  from  historical  evidence,  that 
the  church,  for  twelve  hundred  years,  (not  to 
say  for  fifteen  hundred  and  twenty-two  years,) 
ahvays  held  infant  baptism,  and  during  all  that 
time  none  ever  rejected  it,  on  cm\j  such  grounds 
as  are  now  urged  by  our  Baptist  brethren.  He 
who  can,  in  view  of  all  this  evidence,  persist  in 
his  opposition  to  the  baptism  of  children,  must, 
it  appears  to  me,  be  prepared  to  make  a  sacrifice 
of  all  historical  evidence,  at  the  altar  of  a  pre- 
judice that  is  both  deaf  and  blind  ;  too  deaf  to 
hear  the  voice  of  reason,  and  too  blind  to  see 
the  light  of  truth.  This  language  is  strong ; 
because  it  is  the  result  of  strong  conviction  on 
my  own  mind.  I  have  long  since  learned,  that 
where  men  can  laugh,  and  sneer,  at  the  consci- 
entious conduct  of  people  as  pious  as  themselves^ 
because  they  choose  to  dedicate  their  children 
to  God  in  baptism  ;  and  ca.n  make  sport  with 
the  feelings  of  a  mother,  who  v/islies  to  have 
her  child  given  to  God  in  his  ordinance  before 
it  dies ;  (Mr.  B.'s  Sermon,  p.  26  ;) — I  say  I  have 
long  since  learned,  that  with  such  (at  least)  no 
other  language  vriil  make  any  impression.  You 
had  as  well  attempt  to  "  draw  out  leviathan 
with  a  hook,"  .Tob  xli.  Such,  in  the  language 
of  St.  Paul,  (Titus  i,  13,)  need  to  be  "  rebuked 
sharply ;"  and  though  they  may  not  bo  induced 
to  be  "  sound  in  faith^''  they  may,  perhaps,  be 
taught  to  treat  with  Christian  courtesy  those 


84  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

who,  as  Bunyan  says,  '•  may  not  see  it  their 
duty  to  jump  v:ith  iliemP  A  candid  Baptist 
friend  once  said  to  me,  "  It  would  not  do  for  us 
to  admit  infant  baptism."  "  Why  V  said  I.  His 
reply  was,  "•  We  would  be  like  farmers  who  cut 
off  their  corn  while  it  is  young."  "  Thank  you 
for  your  candour,"  was  my  reply.  "  You  think 
that  if  all  the  children  Avere  baptized  in  infancy, 
there  would  be  no  corn  gathered  into  the  Baptist 
garner  in  adult  age."  I  liaAe  often  wondered 
why  the  baptism  of  children  should  so  disturb 
our  "  differing  brethren."  But  I  perceive,  hi 
Mr.  B.'s  Sermon,  p.  26,  a  little  light  on  this 
point :  he  says,  "  It  is  a  positive  evil^  Why 
so  ?  Look,  reader,  lower  down  on  the  same 
page,  and  you  will  see.  Because  by  it  "  thou- 
sands who  are  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth"  are  led  to  refuse  "believers'  baptism." 
This,  to  be  sure,  is  a  sore  evil;  but,  happily, 
not  so  much  to  the  convert  as  to  those  who 
would  proselyte  him,  by  teazing  him  about 
"  believers'  baptism."  A  man  goes  on  in  sin, 
his  baptized  neighbour  never  reproves  him  or 
talks  seriously  to  him  about  the  "  salvation"  of 
his  precious  soul ;  he  goes  to  a  Pedobaptist 
meeting ;  is  awakened  and  converted  to  God — 
returns  home — soon  has  a  visit  from  his  neigh- 
bour. He  wonders  what  has  brought  his  friend 
so  early  to  see  him. 

Neighbour.  I  wish  to  have  a  little  conversa- 
tion with  you. 

Convert.  Certainly. 

Neighbour.   I  was  pleased  to  hear  that  you 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  85 

have  ^\found  grace'^  at  the meeting ;  I  wish 

you  to  tell  me  your  experience. 

The  convert  proceeds  to  detail  his  experience. 

Neighbour.  "  Very  good ;''''  '''a  gospel  experi- 
rience,'^  "  very  much  like  my  own  ;"  "  now  all  you 
want  is  one  things 

Convert.  Pray,  neighbour,  what  is  that?  I 
am  happy  in  God ;  "  believing,  I  rejoice  with 
joy  unspeakable."  I  am  not  conscious  of  want- 
ing any  thing  but  "  more  graceP    What  do  you 


Neighbour.  Why — why — the  "  Master  says," 
"  Believe  and  he  baptized."* 

Convert.  O,  is  that  what  you  mean?  On  that 
subject  I  have  no  concern.  I  was  baptized  in 
infancy ;  and  I  now  have  the  thing  signified, 
i.  e.,  "the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost," — ^just 
as  the  Jewish  children  received  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  in  childhood,  and  at  adult  age  became 
"  circumcised  in  heart." 

Neighbour.  Well,  but  you  must  obey  the 
"  commandment." 

Convert.  Neighbour,  my  parents  were  Chris- 
tians^ and  you  cannot  show  me  a  commandment, 
or  a  precedent,  for  baptizing  the  children  of 
Christian  parents  at  adult  age.  And  moreover, 
I  cannot  join  a  church  whose  confession  of  faith 
I  do  not  believe  ;  and  I  could  not  receive  be- 
lievers' baptism,  if  I  wished  it,  without  joining 
your  church. 

*  I  cannot  find  those  words  in  this  form  in  the  New 
Testament.  They  remind  me  of  the  old  coloured  man's 
text — "  The  Lord  says,  Be  baptized  in  much  ivater." 


86  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Neighbour.  Why,  friend,  as  for  the  confession 
of  faitli,  you  need  not  inind  thaty  for  one  of  our 
elders  said,  "  He  would  not  give  the  confession 
of  faith  room  in  his  saddle-bags."  And  again, 
we  hold  nearly  the  same  doctrines  those  do 
among  whom  you  found  the  Lord ;  as  you  may 
find  from  our  preaching.  We  may  differ  a  little 
about  falling  from  grace ;  but  that  is  not  much, 
you  know." 

Convert.  Well,  friend,  I  cannot  judge  so  much 
what  men  believe  in  our  day  from  their  preaching 
as  from  their  confessions  of  faith. 

Neighbour.  I  wish  you  well,  neighbour.  Fare- 
well. 

Convert.  I  wish  you  the  same  ;  for  I  trust,  as 
St.  Paul  says,  "  we  have  been  both  baptized  by 
one  Spirit  into  Christ.''^ 

They  part,  and  he  who  would  have  "  com- 
passed sea  and  land"  to  make  a  proselyte  of  his 
neighbour,  says,  as  he  walks  mournfully  home, 
filed  with  disappointment  and  chagrin,  "It  is  a 
POSITIVE  evil"  that  my  neighbour  was  baptized 
in  infancy. 

We  have  seen,  candid  reader,  in  the  course 
of  this  argument, 

1.  God  has  but  one  church,  and  never  had 
more.  Christ  was  the  angel  that  was  with  the 
church  "  in  the  loilderness,  and  they  tempted 
Christ;'  1  Cor.  x,  9. 

2.  In  that  church,  the  right  of  infants  to  mem- 
bership was  admitted  for  tsvo  thousand  years. 

3.  That  right  never  was  done  away  by  any 
"  statute  of  repeal." 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  87 

4.  The  only  two  general  covenants  that  God 
ever  made  with  man,  he  made  with  Adam  in 
the  garden  of  Eden,* — the  covenant  of 
WORKS,  which  was  broken  ;  and  the  covenant 
of  grace  in  Christ. 

5.  This  covenant  of  grace  was  the  same 
that  w^as  confirmed  to  iVbraham,  (four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  before  the  giving  of  the  law,) 
of  which  circumcision  w^as  then  made  the  seal 
and  sign. 

6.  This  covenant  recognised  the  right  of 
children  to  membership,  and  admitted  them  to 
the  sign  of  the  covenant. 

7.  This  covenant  was  fully  developed  under 
the  gospel  dispensation,  when  Christ  became 
visibly  '•  the  minister  of  the  covenant." 

8.  Under  the  gospel,  the  children  of  the  Jews 
were  not  rejected,  because  none  were  broken 
off  from  "  the  true  olive,"  except  for  *'  unbelief," 
of  which  Jewish  infants  were  incapable. 

9.  Christ  encouraged  the  reception  of  chil- 
dren in  his  name,  and  blessed  them;  and  put  no 
clause  in  the  commission  of  the  apostles,  to 
change  the  order  which  had  existed,  with  regard 
to  children,  for  thousands  of  years. 

10.  They  all,  being  Jews,  would  so  under- 
stand the  commission  as  to  admit  the  children^ 
unless  forbidden  so  to  do. 

11.  The  baptism  of  families  was  practised 
in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  it  is  unreason- 

*  I  am  happy  to  find  this  view  borne  out  by  the  old  Phi- 
ladelphia Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  printed  by  Benjamin 
Franklin  in  1742,  pp.  73-74. 


88  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

able  to  suppose  there  were  no  infants  among 
them. 

12.  The  church  practised  it  for  at  least  twelve 
hundred  years  without  opposition,  except  from 
TertuUian  and  the  Petrobrusians ;  who  opposed 
it  on  different  grounds  from  those  on  which  our 
Baptist  friends  oppose  it. 

13.  If  it  had  been  an  innovation  upon  "  gospel 
order,"  or  a  departure  from  the  "  original  pat- 
tern^''  some  Baptist,  surely,  would  have  raised 
his  voice  against  it,  in  twelve  centuries.  An 
innovation  of  the  kind  could  not  have  been  in- 
troduced without  a  spirited  controversy ;  the 
existence  of  which  controversy  no  Baptist  has 
ever  been  able  to  shov*'. 

14.  And  finally,  that  the  Waldenses,  those 
opposers  of  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish 
Church,  were  generally  Pedobaptists. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  the  general  argu- 
ment, we  say,  He  who  takes  the  Baptist  view 
of  this  subject  has  to  suppose,  on  the  contrary, 
that  when  the  gospel  dispensation  was  opened, 
a  dispensation  of  larger  promises  and  increased 
privileges  and  liberality,  the  right  of  infants  to 
membership  was  taken  away ;  and  that  this 
took  place  without  one  hint  or  reason  being 
given  for  it ;  without  any  single  mention  of  it 
in  the  apostolic  writings.  Nay,  that  instead  of 
such  notice  and  explanation,  a  mode  of  expres- 
sion was  adopted  under  the  "  new  economy,^''  simi- 
lar to  that  used  before ;  calculated  to  convey  the 
idea  that  parents  and  children  stood  in  their  old 
relation,  notwithstanding  the  supposed  painful 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  89 

change.  That  parents,  Christian  parents,  saw 
their  children  rejected,  who  always  had  seen 
them  admitted  while  they  were  Jews  ;  and  yet 
no  murmur  was  heard,  no  explanation  asked. 
Is  this  credible  ?  This  silence  "  pleads  trumpet 
tongued"  against  the  views  of  our  Baptist  friends, 
and  has  the  weight  of  a  hundred  arguments  for 
infant  baptism. 

The  argument,  therefore,  is  reduced  to  this  : 
"  If  infant  baptism  is  an  innovation,  it  confess- 
edly entered  the  church  very  soon  after  the 
canon  of  Scripture  closed  ;"  and  in  a  few  years 
more,  "  without  a  single  precept  to  warrant,  or 
a  single  example  to  encourage  it ;  yea,  with  the 
well  known  practice  of  the  apostles,  and  of  all 
the  churches  they  ever  planted,  directly,  openly, 
palpably  against  it;  under  all  these  disadvan- 
tages, it  so  universally  prevailed,  that,  upon  the 
face  of  the  whole  earth,  there  was  not  a  church 
found  where  it  was  not  performed."  Yea,  more ; 
it  entered  the  church,  it  prevailed,  it  became 
universal,  without  a  whisper  of  opposition,  without 
a  word  of  dispute.  All  parties  in  the  eastern 
church,  and  all  parties  in  the  western  church, 
confederating  to  connive  at  the  error,  to  blot  out 
every  trace  of  it  from  the  page  of  history,  and 
never  to  utter  a  single  loord  from  which  it  could 
be  discovered  that  they  had  departed  from  the 
gospel  rule  ;  to  that  man  who  believes  this,  what 
can  be  incredible  ?  Such,  surely,  would  make 
good  disciples  of  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion.  For  such,  we  think,  could  easily  take 
another  step  ;  and,  denying  the  evidence  of  their 


90  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

se7ises,  swallow  a  wafer  for  the  real  body  and 
blood  of  Christ. 

A  few  observations  more  in  reply  to  the 
question,  Who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  bap- 
tism ?  and  we  shall  close  this  part  of  the  gene- 
ral argument. 

We  readily  admit  that  believers,  in  the  fullest 
sense  of  that  word,  are  proper  subjects,  and  that 
the  possession  of  the  highest  religious  experi- 
ence furnishes  no  bar  to  the  reception  of  the 
outward  sign.  In  reading  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  ordinance 
was  given  both  to  those  that  had,  and  to  those 
that  had  not,  received  the  Holy  Ghost.  On  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  when  three  thousand  inquired 
what  they  must  do,  Peter  said,  "  Repent  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you,  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  By  what  they  saw  and  heard,  espe- 
cially the  gift  of  tongues,  by  which  each  was 
enabled  to  hear  the  wonderful  works  of  God  in 
the  language  in  which  each  was  born,  they 
were  convinced  of  the  Messiahship  of  Christ, 
and  saw  their  own  guilt  and  danger,  and  in- 
quired of  the  apostles  the  way  of  escape.  We 
presume  it  will  not  be  said  that  they  had  a 
Christian  experience,  in  the  usual  sense  of  that 
phrase.     See  Acts  ii. 

In  the  eighth  chapter  of  Acts  we  find  re- 
corded the  case  of  the  Samaritans,  who  heard 
Philip  "■  preaching  the  things  concerning  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ; 
and  when   they  saw   the    miracles   which   he 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  91 

wrought,  they  believed  his  preaching  upon  the 
evidence  of  those  miracles,  and  '  were  baptized, 
both  men  and  women.' "  And  it  was  not  until 
"  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem  had  heard  that  Sa- 
maria had  received  the  word  of  God,"  and  had 
sent  down  Peter  and  John,  who  laid  their  hands 
on  them  and  prayed,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  came 
on  them.  Now  if  our  Baptist  friends  should 
say,  that  what  they  received  was  not  the  ordi- 
nary, but  the  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  for  the  purpose  of  speaking  with  tongues, 
(fee,  they  must  say  it  upon  their  own  responsi- 
bility, for  there  is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  of 
it  in  the  text.  And  if  they  should  still  persist 
in  saying  that  they  were  genuine  converts,  eocpe- 
rie7iced  believers,  before  Peter  and  John  came  to 
them,  then  they  admit  that  a  man  may  be  an 
experienced  Christian  without  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  if  one  man,  or  many,  (as  in  this  case),  theji 
all  might,  and  the  conclusion  would  be,  there  is 
no  need  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  constituting  men 
real  believers,  genuine  converts.  For  Luke 
says,  verses  15,  16,  "Who,  when  they  were 
come  down,  prayed  for  them,  that  they  might 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  Far  as  yet  he  loas 
fallen  upon  none  of  them ;  only  they  were  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Then 
laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and  thev  received 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

But  if  our  Baptist  friends  should  still  say  that 
these  people  had  a  religious  experience  before 
they  were  baptized,  then  they  throw  themselves 
into  another  dilemma ;  for  what  is  said  of  their 


92  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

religion  is  said  also  of  Simon's  :  in  verse  13  it 
is  said,  "  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also;  and 
when  he  was  baptized,"  &c.  Did  Simon  obtain 
the  gTace  of  evangelical  faith  before  baptism  ? 
Then  he  must  have  fallen  from  grace,  and  fallen 
foully  too  ;  for  Peter  said  to  him,  verses  21,  23, 
"  Thou  hast  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter;" 
"  Thou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitterness" 

Then  what  becomes  of  the  favourite  doctrine, 
"  once  in  grace,  always  in  grace  ?"  But  perhaps 
I  shall  be  told,  Simon  Magus  never  had  any 
grace  ;  then  he  got  an  experience  without  grace, 
or,  if  you  like  it  better,  he  was  baptized  without 
grace,  and  if  he  was,  so  were  the  rest,  for  what 
is  said  of  their  faith  is  said  of  his.  I  may  be 
told  further,  Simon  was  a  reprobate,  and  never 
had  any  thing  more  than  a  common  call  and 
common  grace.  Then  Philip  baptized  a  repro- 
bate. And  even  after  he  had  offered  to  buy  the 
Holy  Ghost  with  money,  Peter  exhorted  him 
to  repentance  and  prayer,  that  he  might  be  for- 
given. Query:  If  Simon  had  given  heed  to 
Peter's  exhortation,  (and  there  is  some  proof 
that  he  did,  verse  24,  for  he  asked  an  interest 
in  the  apostle's  prayers,)  and  had  prayed,  re- 
pented, and  become  a  genuine  believer,  would  our 
Baptist  brethren  have  thought  it  necessary  to 
re-baptize  Simon  1  If  they  apply  the  same  rea- 
soning to  adults  that  they  do  to  children,  in  ex- 
plaining the  commission,  or  what  Mr.  Campbell 
calls  "  the  law  of  baptism,"  namely,  that  baptism 
must  always  follow  faith,  and  not  go  before  it, 
in  any  case,  as  the  commission  says,  "  He  that 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  93 

believeth  and  is  baptized ;" — did  Simon's  want 
of  evangelical  faith  vitiate,  or  render  his  baptism 
a  nullity?  If  it  did,  then  he  ought  to  have  been 
re-baptized  upon  his  repentance  ;  if  it  did  not, 
then  I  cannot  see  how  the  baptism  of  an  infant 
is  rendered  a  nullity,  by  its  unbelief,  when  at 
adult  age. 

The  argument  attempted  to  be  drawn  from 
the  order  of  the  words  in  the  commission  is 
entirely  sophistical.  As  much  so  as  if  I  were 
to  say,  that  because  "  John  the  Baptist  baptized 
in  the  wilderness,  and  preached  the  baptism  of 
repentance,"  therefore  John  always  baptized  the 
people  frst,  and  preached  the  baptism  of  re- 
pentance to  them  afterward. 

Having  digressed  thus  far,  I  remark,  this  case 
of  Simon's  is  a  very  perplexing  case,  especially 
to  all  Calvixist  Baptists,  for,  when  examined, 
it  is  found  to  endanger  one  of  two  of  their 
favourite  opinions.  From  both  horns  of  the 
dilemma-  it  is  impossible  to  escape.  Either 
Simon  had  no  grace  and  vjas  baptized  without  an 
experience,  or  he  had  grace  when  baptized,  and 
afterward  so  utterly  lost  it,  that  he  had  no  part 
or  lot  in  the  matter.  They  can  take,  candid 
reader,  just  which  side  of  the  question,  just  that 
horn  of  this  dilemma  that  may  suit  them  best. 
It  is  common,  of  two  evils,  for  men  in  self-love 
to  choose  the  least ;  and  as  grace  is  more  valu- 
able than  water,  even  "  much  xcater^''  I  suppose 
they  will  cling  to  the  consolation  of  the  Lord's 
dear  people,  "  where  he  begins  a  work  of  grace, 
he  always  carries  it  on  to  the  end,"  and  will 


94  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

suppose  that  Philip,  some  how  or  other,  (''  al- 
though he  was  full  of  wisdom  and  of  the  Holy- 
Ghost,")  made  a  mistake,  and  baptized  an  im- 
proper candidate  in  that  particular  case. 

The  true  state  of  the  case  seems  to  have 
been  this  :  Philip  entered  Samaria,  commenced 
preaching  Christ,  and,  to  confirm  his  doctrine, 
began  to  "heal  the  lame,"  "to  cure  the  palsied," 
and  to  cast  out  unclean  spirits,  that  cried  with  a 
loud  voice  as  they  came  out  of  those  who  were 
possessed  of  them.  »Simon  and  the  Samaritans 
heard  his  message,  saw  the  miracles,  were  con- 
vinced that  the  message  was  true,  were  willing 
to  enter  the  school  of  Christ  as  disciples,  by- 
baptism,  that  they  might  be  made  better  ac- 
quainted with  this  new  religion. 

Christianity  was  established  by  miracle,  and 
those  who  gave  it  credence  in  the  early  part  of 
its  history  rested  their  faith  or  conviction  of  its 
truth,  not  so  much  upon  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  its  peculiar  doctrines,  as  upon  the  evidence 
brought  home  to  their  minds  through  the  me- 
dium of  their  senses  ;  and  those  senses  were 
powerfully  addressed  by  the  miracles  of  our 
Lord  and  his  apostles.  So  ignorant  were  the 
apostles  themselves  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  that  up  to  the  period  of  the  Saviour's 
crucifixion,  "  they  wondered  what  the  rising 
from  the  dead  should  mean."  Eloquent  Apollos 
himself  knew  so  little  of  the  peculiarities  of 
Christianity,  (even  after  he  had  convmced  the 
Jews  that  Jesus  was  Christ,)  that  it  was  neces- 
sary a  plain  mechanic  and  his  wife  should  teach 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  95 

him  the  way  of  the  Lord  "  more  perfectly.''^  And 
so  ignorant  were  the  twelve  disciples,  found  by- 
Paul  at  Ephesus,  that  they  knew  not  that  there 
was  any  Holy  Ghost.  See  Acts,  ch.  xix.  And 
those  disciples  received  the  Christian  baptism 
from  the  hands  of  the  apostles,  in  addition  to 
the  baptism  of  John,  which  they  had  previously 
received ;  and  when  they  had  received  water 
baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  Paul  had 
laid  his  hands  on  them,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  came 
on  them." 

The  case  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  as  found  in  the 
Acts,  ch.  xxii,  is  in  point.  He  was  exhorted  by 
Ananias  to  "  arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash 
away  his  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
To  this  penitent  sinner  he  said,  "  Why  tarriest 
thou  ?  arise  and  be  baptized."  It  would  not  look 
well  to  fly  in  the  face  of  the  text,  and  say  that 
his  sins  were  washed  away  before  he  was  ad- 
mitted to  the  ordinance. 

The  Ethiopian  eunuch  is  the  only  person  that 
we  find  in  the  Acts  professing  to  believe  with 
the  heart  unto  righteousness,  in  order  to  bap- 
tism. And  his  faith  seems  to  have  had  refer- 
ence to  one  point  alone  ;  he  said  to  Philip,  "  I 
believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  o-f  God." 
He  heard  but  one  sermon,  was  in  company  with 
Philip  perhaps  one  hour,  and,  ere  they  parted, 
Philip  made  a  disciple  of  him  by  baptism. 

It  is  true  that  Cornelius,  and  those  in  his 
house,  Acts,  ch.  x,  did  receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
while  Peter  was  speaking  the  word,  and  re- 
ceived Christian  baptism  subsequently ;  but  the 


96  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

reader  will  observe  that  this  was  a  peculiar 
case  ;  it  was  the  opening  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation to  the  Gentiles ;  when  Peter,  with  the 
keys  which  Christ  gave  him,  vi^as  to  "  open  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  Gentiles,"  as  he  had 
done  previously  to  the  Jews.  And  the  same 
reason  that  made  it  necessary  to  show  Peter  a 
vision  to  induce  him  to  go  to  Cornelius,  made  it 
necessary  to  send  upon  those  Gentiles  the  Holy 
Ghost  prior  to  baptism  ;  and,  by  examining  the 
passage,  you  may  observe  that  the  six  brethren 
who  came  from  Joppa  with  Peter  were  asto- 
nished when  they  observed  that  God  had  given 
the  Gentiles  the  Holy  Ghost.  "  Then  said 
Peter,  who  can  forbid  water  ?"  &c.  When  the 
news  of  this  visit  reached  Jerusalem,  they  of 
the  circumcision  contended  with  Peter ;  and 
he,  in  making  his  defence,  adduces  this  circum- 
stance as  his  vindication  :  "  While  I  was  speak- 
ing, the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them^''  &c.,  "  and 
what  was  I  that  I  could  withstand  God  ?" 

These,  doubtless,  had  a  religious  experience, 
in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word  ;  but  it  will  ap- 
pear evident,  we  think,  to  all  who  examine  the 
gospels  and  the  Acts,  that  the  ordinance  was 
never  delayed  for  the  want  of  an  experience  of 
grace.  In  almost  every  case,  both  Christ  and 
his  apostles  gave  the  ordinance  to  all  without 
exception,  and  without  delay,  who  applied  to 
them,  and  were  willing  to  assume  the  respon- 
sibilities of  discipleship.  Hence  we  find  ia 
John  vi,  60,  66,  "  Many,  therefore,  of  his  dis' 
cipleSy  when  they  had  heard  this,  said,  This  is 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  97 

a  hard  saying,  who  can  bear  it?  &c.  And 
Jesus  said,  Doth  this  offend  you  ?  But  there 
are  some  of  you  that  believe  not.  For  Jesus 
knew  from  the  beginning  who  they  were  that 
believed  not,  and  who  should  betray  him." 

Now,  here  are  many  disciples,  who,  of  course, 
were  baptized  persons,  that  did  not  believe.  And 
we  are  told  that  ^^  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning'^ 
that  they  believed  not.  They  therefore  never 
had  believed ;  and  consequently  w^ere  not  be- 
lievers at  the  time  of  their  baptism.  And  they 
never  had  faith  afterward;  for  we  read,  '-^they 
went  back  and  walked  no  more  with  htm.'" 

In  further  proof,  it  may  be  observed,  that  of 
all  the  thousands  that  Christ  baptized  before  his 
death  from  "Jerusalem  and  the  region  round 
about,"  of  them,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there 
were  to  be  found  but  one  hundred  and  twenty 
disciples,  until  the  conversion  of  the  three  thou- 
sand. Where  were  they?  Had  so  many  thou- 
sand true  believers,  with  one  consent,  made 
shipwreck  of  faith  ?  No,  reader ;  they  had  been 
struck  with  the  splendour  of  his  miracles,  they 
offered  themselves  as  disciples,  were  entered 
into  his  school  by  baptism  ;  but,  disliking  after- 
ward his  spiritual  teachings,  and  the  simplicity 
of  his  religion,  they  "  went  back.^^  It  is  much 
easier  to  enter  the  church  of  Christ  as  disciples 
by  baptism,  than  to  perform  those  solemn,  spi- 
ritual, and  importaTit  duties  to  which  we  are 
introduced  by  taking  this  badge  of  discipleship. 

From  what  we  have  written  above,  it  will  be 
gathered  that  we  consider  all  as  fit  subjects  for 
7 


98  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

baptism  who  credit  the  gospel  message,  are 
willing  to  receive  Christ  as  their  Saviour,  and 
assume  the  responsibilities  of  Christianity.  I 
was  informed  lately  by  a  minister  of  the  old 
Baptist  Church,  that  a  certain  Dr.  T.,  who, 
I  am  told,  is  one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  preachers, 
has  been  engaged  lately  re-baptizing  the  mem- 
bers of  the  old  Baptist  Church,  who,  years  ago, 
received  what  is  called  "  believers'  baptism.^^ 
They  received  believers'  baptism  before.  What 
are  they  receiving  now  ?  1  suppose  the  doctor 
is  baptizing  them  "  for  the  remission  of  sins." 
Query — Is  not  this  reversing  the  order  of 
Christian  experience  ?  or  tacitly  confessing 
that  they  were  deceived  before,  and  only  had 
a  false  hope  ?  I  presume  they  repented,  be- 
lieved, and  were  baptized  upon  an  experience 
of  grace.  And  now  do  they  go  back  ?  If  they 
Avere  baptized  before,  according  to  Mr.  C's 
"  law  of  baptism,^''  pray  what  law  are  they  now 
baptized  under  ?  Has  Dr.  T.,  in  "  expounding 
the  ancient  gospel"  to  them,  added  a  supple- 
ment to  the  law  ?  This  reminds  me  of  the  case 
of  a  member  of  the  Baptist  Church,  not  one 
hundred  miles  from  this,  who  has  received' 
baptism  three  different  times.  Do  men  who  read 
their  Bibles  imagine  that  they  tind  a  "  Thus 
saith  the  Lord"  for  giving  Christian  baptism  to 
any  man  more  than  once  ?  It  is  trifling  with 
God's  ordinance,  and  has  as  little  authority 
from  God's  word  as  from  common  sense.  In 
the  close,  suffer  me  to  repeat  the  language  of 


.MODE  OF  DAPTlti.M.  99 

Dr.  A.  Clarke  : — "  The  repetition  of  Christian 
baptism  I  beheve  to  be  profaned 

Let  us  all  who  have  been  solemnly  dedicated 
in  baptism  to  God,  Father,  Son,  and  -Holy 
Ghost,  recollect  that  "  we  are  debtors  to  keep 
the  whole  law,"  And  may  God,  whose  we 
are,  "  send  us  help  from  his  sanctuary,  and 
strengthen  us  out  of  Zion,"  that  we  may  walk 
worthy  of  our  high,  holy,  and  heavenly  calling. 

MODE    OF   BAPTISM. 

On  this  part  of  the  subject  I  think  Mr.  Broad- 
dus's  iruotto  or  text  a  very  unfortunate  one,  as  he 
cannot  show  any  analogy  between  the  detailed 
directions  given  to  Moses  for  building  the  taber- 
nacle, and  the  casual  or  accidental  manner  in 
which  baptism  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. For  if  God  had  given  as  specific  direc- 
tions for  baptizing  as  he  did  anciently  for  making 
the  tabernacle,  it  would  not  have  been  neces- 
sary for  Mr.  B.  to  labour  through  forty-two  pages 
to  show  the  pattern  given  for  baptism.  He  says. 
Sermon,  p.  6,  that  he  selected  that  motto  '■'■  as 
suggesting  the  necessity  of  a  rigid  adherence  to 
the  EXPRESSED  vjill  of  God,  esjoecially  in  relation 
to  institutions,^''  <^c.;  and  then  proceeds  to  assert 
a  fanciful  distinction  between  what  he  calls 
*'  moral  and  positive  requirements,"  and  says, 
"  The  manner  of  performing  a  moral  obligation 
may  be  perfectly  indifferent ;"  but  declares  it 
is  not  so  with  ^'positive  institutions."     Unfortu- 


100  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

nately  for  Mr.  B.,  he  has  not  even  attempted  to 
furnish  a  single  proof  from  God's  word  in  sup- 
port of  this  view  oi positive  institutes  and  moral 
duties-  To.  be  sure  he  quotes  Bishop  Hoadley 
in  proof.  But  I  cannot  perceive  that  the  bishop's 
words  sustain  Mr.  B.'s  position.  Mr.  B.  says 
'■'■positive  institutions f^  the  bishop  says  '■^posi- 
tive duties^  Now,  positive  duties  may  he  insti- 
tutions, or  they  may  not.  If  Mr.  B.  had  been  so 
good  as  to  tell  where  this  saying  of  the  bishop's 
is  to  be  found,  we  should  have  been  better  able 
to  tell  whether  the  words  will  bear  that  kind  of 
application.  So  far  as  we  can  perceive,  the 
evidence  is  not  to  the  point,  but  to  be  proved. 
Mr.  B.  says  on  the  same  page,  "  We  may  ex- 
pect to  find  the  Avord  of  God  very  explicit  on 
the  subject  of  positive  institutions,"  and  yet  his 
distinction  is  unsupported  by  a  single  text  of 
Scripture.  I  enter  my  dissent  from  his  starting 
position  relative  to  positive  institutions,  because 
it  stands  opposed  to  facts.  1.  Circumcision  was 
a  positive  institute  ;  and  can  any  man  show  any 
detailed  explicit  direction  about  the  manner  of 
performing  the  rite?  2.  The  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  supper  is  a  positive  institute.  Do  the 
Scriptures  give  specific  directions  about  the 
manner  of  attending  to  that  ?  It  was  first  cele- 
brated in  the  night,  in  a  reclining  posture,  with 
unleavened  bread,  in  an  upper  room,  &c.,  &c. ; 
and  yet  what  intelligent  Christian  supposes  that 
these  things  are  any  more  than  mere  circum- 
stances, or  that  they  are  necessary  to  the  accept- 
able celebration  of  that  supper  1  Do  our  Baptist 


iMODE   OF  BAPTISM.  101 

brethren  celebrate  it  at  night  ?  or  with  unlea- 
vened bread  ?  And  would  not  Mr.  B.  himself  as 
soon  receive  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper 
on  the  Lord's  day,  in  the  house  of  God,  as  on 
Thursday  night,  in  an  upper  room  of  a  private 
house  ?  I  know  there  are  superstitious  people 
who  regard  a  mere  circumstance  in  a  sacrament 
as  a  matter  of  great  moment.  And  so  there 
were  those  of  old  who  thought  more  of  "  tithing 
mint'''  than  they  did  of  the  "  love  of  GodJ^ 

Let  our  Baptist  friends  apply  their  own  prac- 
tice with  regard  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
supper  to  the  principle  which  Mr.  B.  laj-s  down 
with  regard  to  ^'positive  institutions,^'  and  they 
will  see  a  great  want  of  agreement  between  his 
principles  and  their  practice.  And  say,  candid 
reader,  is  the  institution  of  baptism  more  im- 
portant than  that  which  represents  "  his  broken 
body"  and  '^  his  shed  blood'' — and  shows  forth 
the  Lord's  death  till  his  coming  again  ?  Why, 
then,  this  insistiiig  on  a  "  pattern"  for  baptism, 
when  no  man  can  show  in  God's  word  a  ^^ pat- 
tern" for  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper  ? 
Bread  and  wine  are  spoken  of  for  the  one,  and 
water  as  the  element  for  the  observance  of  the 
other.  And  although  Mr.  B.  says,  p.  27,  "  The 
word  of  God  knows  nothing  for  baptism  but 
immersion"  I  as  unhesitatingly  declare,  that  the 
word  of  God  speaks  of  baptism  where  immer- 
sion  was  utterly  out  of  the  question.  Now, 
candid  reader,  I  have  just  placed  my  assertion 
alongside  of  Mr.  B.'s,  hoping  that  you  will  re- 
ceive neither  the  one  nor  the  other  in  this  matter 


102  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

wiihowt  pronf.  The  proof  I  hope  to  be  able  to 
give  yon  in  the  following  pages. 

Mr.  B.  commences  on  the  mode,  by  finding 
fault  with  the  translators  for  leaving  the  Greek 
terms  untranslated ;  giving  them  an  English 
termination,  instead  of  translating  them  im~ 
merse,  immersed,  immersion,  &c.  And  both  in 
the  Strictures  and  Sermon,  King  James,  the 
bishops,  and  translators,  are  treated  without 
ceremony. 

The  impartial  reader  will  judge  whether  it  is 
likely  that  the  king,  the  bishops,  and  forty-seven 
translators  would  form  a  consjiiracy  against  the 
truth ;  and  give  to  the  world  a  translation  that 
did  not  express  fully  what  they  believed  to  be 
the  sense  of  the  original  term  haptizo.  I  would 
ask  Mr.  B.,  Who  prevented  the  Latin  and 
French  translators  from  translating  the  original, 
so  far  as  to  favour  immersion  only  ?  And  v/hy 
he  did  not  furnish  evidence  that  Dr.  George 
Campbell,  in  his  translation  of  the  gospels — or 
the  great  Dutch  reformer,  Martin  Luther,  in  his 
translation  of  the  Bible — has  translated  the  ori- 
ginal differently  from  King  James's  translators  ? 
For  he  says,  Sermon,  p.  29,  that  both  Dr.  Camp- 
bell and  Luther  held  the  original  term  as  mean- 
ing immersion  or  dipping  only.  To  be  sure, 
Mr.  B.  says  that  Luther  calls  John  the  Baptist 
"  John  the  Dipper,"  and  gives  what  he  considers 
the  German  of  Luther's  Testament — "  Johan- 
nes der  Taufer" — which  Mr.  B.  (the  translator) 
renders  "  John  the  Dipper."  Reader,  I  do  not 
pretend  to  be  able  to  translate  German,  but  I 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  103 

Strongly  suspect  that  this  gentleman  has  hit  as 
ivide  of  the  truth  here,  as  in  making  haptizo  mean 
immersion  only.  A  friend  of  mine,  who  under- 
stands and  speaks  the  German,  informs  me  that 
the  English  of  ^'■Johannes  der  Taufer'^  is  John 
the  Baptist  ;  and  that  the  German  for  Dipper 
or  Immerser  is  not  ^'■Taufer^'  but  "  Tuncker;" 
hence  the  name  of  that  sect  of  Christians  called 
"  Tiinckers,^^  or  vulgarly  ^'  Du7ikards"  who  bap- 
tize candidates  by  dipping  them  three  times. 

The  translators,  in  retaining  the  original  word 
in  the  translation,  only  followed  what  had  been 
the  general  practice  ;  for,  even  as  far  back  as 
the  second  century,  the  author  of  the  Peshito, 
an  old  Syriac  version  of  the  New  Testament, 
the  oldest  version  extant,  although  the  Syriac 
has  a  word  which  signifies  to  plunge,  dip,  im- 
merse, has  never  used  that  word  in  the  transla- 
tion to  denote  baptism.  Prof.  Stewart,  p.  78. 
Again :  that  the  precise  idea  of  immersion  can- 
not apply  to  baptizing,  or  that  it  does  not  appear 
that  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  would  be 
properly  rendered  by  the  words  immerse,  im- 
mersion, we  may  safely  conclude  from  the  fol- 
lowing consideration : — The  earliest  Latin  trans- 
lators did  not  find  the  Greek  words  properly 
represented  by  mergo,  immergo,  immersio ;  al- 
though these  words  properly  signified  to  immerse, 
immersion,  and  were  commonly  so  used  in  the 
Latin  language.  They  saw  there  was  a  mean- 
ing to  the  Greek  word  which  their  word  denoting 
immersion  did  not  fairly  represent.  And  this 
was  at  a  time,  too,  when  there  were  no  contro- 


104  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

versies  on  the  subject ;  and  at  a  time,  too,  if  we 
believe  the  Baptists,  when  every  person  bap- 
tized was  immersed.  Yet  the  Latin  translators, 
if  the  Baptist  system  be  correct,  must  first  have 
left  a  word  untranslated,  for  which  they  had 
terrns  in  every  respect  corresponding  and  ap- 
propriate. And  secondly,  they  must  have  done 
this  with  the  rite  of  baptism  continually  before 
their  eyes,  performed  by  immersion,  on  account 
of  which  they  would  be  the  more  inexcusable. 
But  these  things  are  not  so.  They  found  the 
words  employed  in  a  ceremonial  sense ;  they 
therefore  retained  the  original  wards  themselves, 
leaving  to  the  institution  itself  to  make  known 
its  mode.  They  therefore  latinize  the  Greek 
words,  and  give  us  haptizo,  baptisma,  baptismus. 
However,  for  doing  so,  they  had  high  authority ; 
the  authority  or  example  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ; 
and  that,  too,  in  a  similar  case.  The  Hebrew 
word,  pesach,  is  retained  by  the  inspired  writers 
of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  Greek  word 
pascha.  The  Latins  latinize  the  same  word. — 
Prof.  Elliot,  pages  81,  82.  These  cases  are 
parallel — one  referring  to  the  institute  of  the 
passover,  and  the  other  to  the  institute  of 
baptism. 

But  Mr.  B.  tells  us  that  Dr.  Carson,  a  Baptist 
writer,  says  that  "  baptizo,  in  the  whole  history 
of  the  Greek  language,  has  but  one  meaning. 
It  not  only  signifies  to  dip  or  immerse,  but  it 
never  has  any  other  meaning." — Sermon,  p.  28. 
Mark  that,  candid  reader,  as  I  shall,  in  the 
course  of  the  argument,  place  John  the  Bap- 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  105 

TTST,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Paul,  all  against  this 
Dr.  Carson  ! !  At  present,  however,  I  shall  only 
place  one  doctor  against  another.  Dr.  Adam 
Clarke,  Commentary,  Matt,  iii,  6,  asks,  "  Were 
the  people  dipped  or  sprinkled?  for  it  is  certain 
bapto  and  haptizo  mean  both."  "  When  Greek 
meets  Greek,  then  is  the  tug  of  war."  As  these 
doctors  disagree,  I  shall  call  in  other  witnesses 
presently.  Perhaps,  reader,  you  are  ready  to 
ask  me,  if  this  is  the  sa,me  Dr.  Clarke  quoted  by 
Mr.  B.,  Strictures,  page  15,  in  support  of  im- 
mersion, as  the  exclusive  mode  ?  Yes,  identically 
the  same.  Mr.  B.,  I  perceive,  has  left  the  doc- 
tor out  of  his  cloud  of  iDitnesses,  in  his  sermon. 
I  suppose  he  began  to  suspect  he  had  not  treated 
the  doctor  very  fairly  in  the  first  publication. 
But  it  may  be  that  he  may  wish  to  suggest  that 
Dr.  Clarke  was  a  sprinkler,  like  the  king,  bishopSy 
and  translators,  and  that  his  account  of  the  mat- 
ter was  influenced  by  his  creed,  or  practice  of 
baptizing.  Very  good ;  and  Dr.  Carson  was  a 
dipper — his  criticism,  no  doubt,  was  influenced 
by  his  practice  in  baptizing; — so  in  this,  at 
least,  they  are  about  equal.  Which  of  the 
doctors  was  the  greater  scholar,  and  conse- 
quently best  prepared  to  judge,  I  shall  not  at- 
tempt to  decide  ;  I  leave  that  to  the  reader. 

Dr.  Carson,  however,  has  made  a  concession 
on  this  subject,  which  will  go  a  great  way  in 
destroying  the  weight  of  his  testimony.  While 
he  contends  that  baptizo  always  signifies  to  im- 
merse, he  acknowledges  that  "  all  the  lexico- 
graphers and  commentators  are   against  Mm  in 


106  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

that  opinion''^ — Carson,  Bapt.,  p.  79,  as  quoted 
by  Dr.  Miller.  How  far  the  confidence  which, 
in  the  face  of  this  acknowledgment,  he  expresses 
that  they  are  all  icrong,  and  that  his  interpreta- 
tion alone  •  is  right,  is  either  modest  or  well- 
founded,  must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the 
impartial  reader. 

Mr.  B.  says  that  "  Professor  Stuart,  as  a 
Biblical  critic,  is  perhaps  not  excelled  by  any 
man  in  the  United  States  ;"  and  this  critic  says 
of  Dr.  Carson,  "  He  lays  down  some  A^ery  ad- 
venturous positions,  in  respect  to  one -meaning, 
and  o?ie  only,  of  words ;  which,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  €V€7y  lexicon  on  earth  contradicts,  and  always 
must  contradict." — Stuart  on  the  Mode  of  Bap- 
tism, p.  100.  So  much  for  Rev.  A.  Carson  and 
his  translation  of  haptizo. 

One  more  remark  relative  to  the  translators 
of  the  common  version.  It  is  not  only  unchris- 
tian to  trample  upon  the  ashes  of  dead  men,  by 
impugning  their  motives  and  misrepresenting 
their  conduct,  but  it  is  ungenerous  to  charge 
them  and  the  bishops  with  making  a  translation 
to  favour  sprinkling,  when  half  the  evidence,  at 
least,  which  the  Baptists  adduce  to  favour  im- 
mersion is  drawn  from  the  manner  in  which 
these  same  translators  have  rendered  the  Greek 
prepositions, — in  Jordan — out  o/the  water,  &.c. 
When,  if  they  had  indulged  any  design  to  de- 
ceive, they  might  have  given  them  fairly  a  dif- 
ferent rendering.  Here,  as  the  Baptists  will 
tell  you,  we  have  a  translation,  partly  support- 
ing sprinkling,  and  partly  against  it.     Surely, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  107 

candid  reader,  tliese  same  forty-seven  trans- 
lators, who  produced  the  common  version  in 
1613,  were"  either  very  stupid,  or  very  honest. 
I  think  the  latter. 

I  shall  next  take  some  notice  of  Mr.  B.'s  list 
of  Pedobaptist  witnesses.  Sermon,  pp.  30,  31, 
and  Strictures,  pp.  14-16.  Some  of  these  wit- 
nesses I  shall  be  obliged  to  pass  by,  as  I  have 
not  their  works  at  hand  to  refer  to.  The  reader 
may  be  able  to  judge  of  the  fairness,  or  rather 
unfairness,  with  which  Mr.  Booth  and  Mr. 
Broaddiis  have  treated  them  all,  from  a  speci- 
men or  two  which  we  expect  to  give. 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind,  that  Mr.  B.'s 
proposition  which  he  wishes  to  sustain  is,  that 
"  immersion,  or  dipping,  is  the  only  proper 
mode,"  or  that  "  baptizo  means  to  dip  only.'' — 
Strictures,  p.  15.  And  he  brings  these  Pedo- 
baptist witnesses  into  court  to  prove  this.  We 
shall  see  whether  he  allows  them,  in  his  hands, 
to  tell  the  luhole  truth  in  the  case.  I  hope  he 
will  not  do  as  some  people  do,  in  quoting  the 
words  of  Christ  as  a  witness  for  unconditioned 
perseverance,  viz.,  "  Of  all  lohom  thou  hast  given 
me,  I  have  lost  none  ;" — so  far,  the  witness 
seems  to  support  the  position ;  but  suffer  him 
to  speak  on, — "  but  the  son  of  perdition.''  Ah, 
this  puts  quite  another  face  upon  the  text ;  as  I 
hope  to  do,  upon  the  testimony  of,  at  least,  some 
of  these  witnesses.  Attend  to  me  patiently, 
gentle  reader — I  am,  in  part,  pleading  the  cause 
of  dead  men,  represented  as  having  lived  and 
died  ^'■inconsistent,"  and  who  are  not  here  to 


108  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

speak  for  themselves,  but  whose  record  is  on 
high.  I  shall  begin  with  Dr.  A.  Clarke.  Mr.  B., 
in  his  Strictures,  page  15,  after  quoting  part  of 
a  sentence  from  Dr.  Clarke's  Commentary  on 
Romans  vi,  4,  says,  "  I  do  think  I  have  proved, 
beyond  all  question,  that  haptizo  means  to  im- 
merse, and  nothing  else."  "  It  has  but  one 
meaning; — these  learned  men  knew  it,  and 
their  candour  forced  them  to  acknowledge  it." 
Reader,  does  Dr. Clarke  acknowledge  it?  Hear 
him  fully  on  Romans  vi,  4  :  "It  is  probable  that 
the  apostle  here  alludes  to  the  mode  of  admi- 
nistering baptism  by  immersion;  I  say  it  is 
PROBABLE — but  not  absolutely  certain  that  he 
does  so,  as  some  imagine  ;  for  in  the  next  verse, 
our  being  incorporated  into  Christ  by  baptism  is 
also  denoted  by  our  being  planted  or  grafted  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  his  death :  and  Noah's 
ark  floating  upon  the  water,  and  sprinkled  by 
the  rain  from  heaven,  is  ^figure  corresponding 
to  baptism,  1  Peter  iii,  20,  21 ;  but  neither  of 
these  gives  us  the  same  idea  of  the  outward 
form  as  burying.  We  must  be  careful,  there- 
fore, not  to  lay  too  much  stress  on  such  a  cir- 
cumstance." Does  this  prove  Mr.  B.'s  position? 
I  think  not.  He  has  taken  great  liberties  with 
this  witness  ;  first  he  mutilates  the  sentence, — 
then  gives  it  as  a  whole,  putting  a  period  in  the 
place  of  Dr.  C.'s  comma, — and  then  puts  the 
•words  baptize  and  immersion  in  italics  ;  and  the 
word  probable,  which  the  doctor  purposely  itali- 
cised twice  in  the  note,  Mr.  B.  does  not  empha- 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  109 

size  at  all.  It  is  bad  enough  to  take  such 
liberties  with  living  men. 

Mr.  Wesley  is  the  next  witness  we  shall  call. 
Mr.  B.  has  treated  him  with  as  little  candour  as 
he  has  the  doctor.  In  his  Strictures,  p.  15,  he 
attempts  to  quote  Mr.  W.  on  Romans  vi,  4,  and 
mutilates  the  sentence  ;  puts  a  period  where 
Mr.  W.  has  none,  and  prefixes  to  the  note  these 
words,  "/if  seems  the  part  of  candour  to  confess,^' 
when  Mr.  W.  has  no  such  words  in  his  note. 
It  is  a  pity  that  Mr.  B.  should  have  lost  sight 
of  his  own  candour  in  attempting  to  find  that 
quality  in  Mr.  W.'s  Notes. 

Mr.  Wesley's  commentary  on  a  parallel  pas- 
sage in  Col.  ii,  12,  is  often  quoted  by  Baptist 
preachers,  to  prove  that  he  favoured  immersion 
only.  I  have  heard  them  do  this  myself.  Al- 
though that  note  is  not  in  Mr.  B.'s  printed  ser- 
mon, I  will  give  it  to  the  reader  to  disabuse  his 
mind  of  any  erroneous  impression  on  that  sub- 
ject. This  note,  when  made  to  speak  in  favour 
of  immersion,  is  quoted  thus  :  "  The  ancient 
manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  is  manifestly 
alluded  to  here."  This  is  only  part  of  the  sen- 
tence used  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and  one  word  left 
out  of  that.  The  note,  when  fairly  quoted, 
proves  nothing  for  the  Baptists.  Mr.  W.'s 
words  are  as  follows  :  "  The  ancient  manner  of 
baptizing  by  immersion  is  as  manifestly  alluded 
to  here  as  the  other  manner  of  baptizing  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  of  water  is.  Heb.  x,  22. 
But  no  stress  is  laid  upon  the  age  of  the  bap- 


110  OBLIGATiON,    SUBJECTS,  AND 

tized,  or  the  manner  of  performing  it,  in  one  or 
the  other  place,"  &c.  Candid*  reader,  does 
either  of  these  passages  contain  the  evidence 
that  Mr.  Wesle}^  acknowledges  immersion  as 
the  only  mode  ?    "I  speak  as  unto  wise  men." 

Mr.  B.,  Sermon,  p.  30,  quotes  two  cases  from 
Mr.  Wesley's  Journal  to  prove  that  he  ^^ preferred 
immersion^''  neither  of  which  proves  any  such 
thing.  The  first  is  the  case  of  a  child  which 
he  baptized  at  eleven  days  old,  according  to  the 
"  rule  of  the  Church  of  England,"  by  immer- 
sion ;  and  as  Mr.  W.  happened  to  mention  that 
the  child  began  to  recover  from  the  time  of  its 
baptism,  Mr.  B.  infers  that  by  mentioning  that 
circumstance  Mr.  Wesley  intended  to  recom- 
mc?id  immersion.  I  infer,  on  the  contrary,  that 
he  meant  to  recommend  infant  baptism. 

The  other  case  is  the  case  of  Mr.  Parker's 
child,  in  Georgia,  which  Mr.  W.  refused  to  bap- 
tize because  its  mother  refused  to  let  it  be 
dipped,  assigning  as  his  reason,  that  the  rubric 
of  his  Church  required  it  to  be  dipped,  unless  it 
were  weak  or  unwell. — Wesley's  Jfournal,  Feb. 
and  May,  1736.  This  was  three  years  before 
Mr.  Wesley  formed  any  society ;  while  he  was 
a  very  young  man,  and  was  a  priest  in  the 
Church  of  England.  He,  of  course,  as  a  con- 
scientious man,  felt  himself  bound  to  regard  the 
rubric  of  his  Church.  He  gives  this  as  his 
reason,  and  utters  no  objection  to  the  child 
being  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  by 
another  person.     According  to   Mr.  B.'s  own 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  Ill 

showing,  the  grand  jury  thought  Mr.  W.  justi- 
fiable in  A'iew  of  the  rubric. 

Mr.  W.  could  not  be  supposed  to  have  under- 
stood the  subject  of  baptism  then  as  perfectly  as 
he  did  when  he  Vv^-ote  his  treatise  on  that  sub- 
ject more  than  twenty  years  afterward.  In  that 
treatise  he  says,  "And  as  there  is  no  clear  proof 
of  dipping  in  Scripture,  so  there  is  very  pro- 
bable proof  of  the  contrary.  It  is  true,  we  read 
of  being  buried  Avith  Christ  in  baptism.  But 
nothing  can  be  inferred  from  such  a  figurative 
expression.  Nay,  if  it  held  exactly,  it  would 
make  as  much  for  sprinkling  as  for  phmging; 
since  in  burying,  the  body  is  not  plunged  through 
the  substance  of  the  earth,  but  rather  earth  is 
poured  or  sprinkled  upon  it."- — Works,  vol.  vi, 
p.  13.  And  finally  this  witness  says,  "The 
greatest  scholars,  and  most  proper  judges  in  the 
matter,  testify  that  the  original  term  translated 
baptize,  means  not  dipping,  but  tvashing  or 
cleansing."  Does  this  prove  Mr.  B.'s  assertion 
true  or  false  ?  He  says  Mr.  Wesley  ^'preferred 
immersion,  and  he  v/ould  have  restored  immer- 
sion if  he  could."  I  think  the  reader  will  see 
a  very  great  want  of  fairness  in  the  manner  in 
which  the  gentleman  has  treated  Mr.  Wesley. 
As  I  am  now  on  the  testimony  of  Mr.  W.,  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  remark  that  the  attempt 
Avhich  Mr.  B.  makes,  in  his  sermon,  to  prove 
that  Mr.  W.  held  baptismal  regeneration,  and 
held  even  worse  views  than  ]\Ir.  A.  Campbell, 
I  think  un^vorthy  a  serious  notice. 


112  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

His  attempt  to  throw  contempt  on  the  Epis- 
copalians, Presbyterians,  Methodists,  and  others, 
by  attributing  to  them  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  is  one  of  those  stratagems  used  to 
mislead  the  mind  of  the  reader ;  a  part  of  that 
finesse  which  is  used  for  the  purpose  of  prose- 
lytism — a  tub  to  decoy  the  whale,  until  he  can 
be  brought  within  the  reach  of  the  ecclesiastical 
harpoon — an  attejnpt  to  prove  that  he  is  right 
by  proving  that  others  are  wrong. 

The  next  witness  I  shall  call  upon  in  the  list 
of  Mr.  B.'s  witnesses  is  Professor  Stuart.  He 
produces  the  testimony  of  the  professor  to  prove 
immersion  as  the  exclusive  mode.  Sermon, 
p.  32.  He  quotes  him  thus  :  "  Both  of  these 
words  [bapto  and  baptizo)  mean  to  dip,  plunge, 
or  immerge  into  any  thing  liquid." 

The  professor  says,  (Stuart  on  the  Mode  of 
Baptism,  pages  29  and  81,)  "There  is,  then, 
no  absolute  certainty  from  usage  that  the  word, 
(baptizo,)  when  applied  to  designate  the  rite  of 
baptism,  means,  of  course,  to  immerge  or  plunge. 
It  may  mean  washing;  possibly  (but  not  proba- 
bly) it  may  mean  copiously  moistening  or  bedew- 
ing ;  because  words  coming  from  the  common 
root  (bap)  are  applied  in  both  these  senses,  as 
we  have  seen  above."  "  No  injiuiction  is  any- 
where given  in  the  New  Testament  respecting  the 
manner  in  which  this  rite  shall  be  performed.  If 
there  be  such  a  passage,  let  it  be  produced. 
This  cannot  be  done.  But  it  will  doubtless  be 
said,  that  '  the  manner  of  the  rite  is  involved  in 
the  word  itself,  which  is  used  to  designate  it, 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  113 

and  that  therefore  this  is  as  much  a  matter  o£ 
command  as  the  rite  itself.'  To  this  I  answer, 
that  it  would  prove  a  great  deal  too  much." 
Again  Professor  Stuart  saj^s,  p.  98,  "  If  you 
say,  The  classical  use  of  the  word  abundantly 
justifies  the  construction  I  put  upon  it;  my 
reply  is.  That  classical  usage  can  never  be  very 
certain  in  respect  to  a  word  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Who  does  not  know  that  a  multitude  of 
Greek  w-ords  here  receive  their  colouring  and 
particular  meanings  from  the  .Hebrew,  and  not 
from  the  Greek  classics  ?"  The  sentiment  of 
the  professor  is  confirmed  by  the  practice  of 
the  apostle  Paul,  who  well  understood  both  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek ;  for  in  Heb.  vi,  2,  he  speaks 
of  the  "  doctrine  of  baptisms''  and  in  ix,  10,  of 
"  divers  baptisms ;"  in  both  of  which  places  he 
doubtless  applies  the  word  to  those  ceremonial 
vmshmgs  or  purifications  used  among  the  Jews, 
which,  he  says  in  verse  13,  "were  performed 
by  sprinlding  the  unclean."  And  we  remark 
here,  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction, 
that  wherever  an  administrator  and  a  subject 
are  found  under  the  Jewish  regulations,  or  Old 
Testament  arrangements,  the  one  administer- 
ing and  the  other  receiving  any  of  those  "  divers 
baptisms,"  the  mode  was  never  by  immersion. 
It  is  true,  the  Jews  washed  or  bathed  themselves 
and  their  clothes;  but  these  washings  they  per- 
formed naked,  and  in  private,  and  never  re- 
ceived them  from  the  hands  of  an  administrator. 
If  the  reader  will  refer  to  Num.  xix,  17,  21,  he 
will  see  the  ceremony  detailed  to  M'hich  the 
8 


114  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

apostle  refers  in  Heb.  ix,  13,  and  calls  it  a  hap- 
iism ;  and  he  will  see  that  the  hyssop  was  dipped 
in  running  water,  and  the  perso7i  was  sprinkled. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark  also,  that  among  the 
ancient  heathens,  purification  was  often  per- 
fonned  by  sprinkling  water  upon  the  unclean 
with  a  branch  of  olive,  or  other  tree.  See  the 
account  in  Potter's  Greek  Antiquities,  p.  200 ; 
and  an  instance  also  in  Virgil's  iEneid,  vi,  229. 

The  reader  will  judge  from  the  testimony  we 
have  adduced  from  Professor  Stuart,  whether 
Mr.  B.  has  quoted  him  fairly. 

That  the  witness  finds  immersion  practised 
in  "  ancient  times''''  not  by  "the  jirst  church, ^^  as 
Mr.  B.  has  it,  Sermon,  p.  32,  is  true,  but  he  finds 
equal  evidence,  he  says,  for  baptizing  men  and 
women  naked,  and  that  by  dipping  them  three 
times,  &c.  He  says,  "  Revolting  as  this  cus- 
tom was,  yet  it  is  as  certain  as  testimony  can 
make  it."  P.  75. 

Now,  candid  reader,  I  leave  you  to  judge  how 
much  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  mutilated 
testimonies  from  Pedobaptist  writers  adduced 
by  Mr.  B.  You  can  judge  of  the  balance  from 
those  I  have  examined.  I  will  close  this  part 
of  the  subject  with  a  quotation  from  that  clear 
and  conclusive  writer  Peter  Edwards,  who  was 
himself  for  a  number  of  years  a  Baptist  preacher, 
and  who  discovered  the  weakness  of  the  argu- 
ments of  the  Baptists,  while  reading  Mr.  Booth's 
book  m  favour  oi  their  views.  He  says,  (speak- 
ing of  Mr.  Booth's  eighty  witnesses,  to  which 
Mr.  Broaddus  refers,)  '•  He  quotes  a  number  of 


iMODE  OF  BAPTISM.  115 

authors,  wlio,  as  he  says,  understood  the  term 
'  baptize'  to  mean  immersion,  pouring,  and 
sprinkling ;  and  these  quotations  he  calls  con- 
cessions. Concessions  of  what  ?  That  the 
word  meant  immersion  only  ?.  If  so,  he  made 
them  concede  what  they  never  did  concede, 
and  what  they  had  no  thought  of  conceding. 
It  is  a  shame  to  abuse  the  living  or  the  dead, 
and  it  is  a  bad  cause  that  requires  it ;  I  doubt 
whether  one  of  the  eighty  abused  critics  was 
on  his  side." — Edwards,  pp.  159,  160. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  the  history 
of  the  ordinance,  as  we  find  it  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  see  whether  the  facts  therein 
detailed  favour  our  views,  or  the  views  of  the 
Baptists.  AVe  shall  first  remark  upon  an  allu- 
sion of  the  apostle  Paul  to  a  case  of  baptism  of 
men,  women,  and  children,  v/hich  occurred  in 
an  early  period  of  the  history  of  the  church ; 
even  before  what  Mr.  Booth  calls  the  Ecclesias- 
iico-Political  Constitution  had  any  existence. 
The  case  is  recorded  in  Exod.  xiv,  19,  22,  and 
is  referred  to  by  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  x,  2,  "And 
were  all  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea  ;"  and  yet  Moses  says,  "  They  went 
into  the  midst  of  the  sea  upon  dry  ground." 
Here  I  put  the  apostle  Paul  against  Mr.  Broad- 
dus  and  Dr.  Carson,  as  I  promised  to  do.  They 
say,  "  The  Scriptures  know  nothing  for  baptism 
but  immersion."  The  apostle  being  judge,  here 
were  six  hundred  thousand  men,  besides  women 
and  children,  all  baptized  while  they  were  on 
"  dry  ground^''  and  all  "  dry  shod.'''' 


116  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

The  reader  ranst  judge  between  these  gentle- 
^men  and  the  apostle.  But  I  shall  be  told  that 
they  were  baptized  *'  in  a  figure,"  as  they  were 
surrounded.'  It  is  dangerous  to  be  making 
figures  to  destroy  the  plain,  obvious  meaning 
of  Scripture.  And  moreover,  they  appear  not 
to  have  been  surrounded,  for  there  was  dry 
land  behind  them  to  the  shore,  and  dry  land 
before  them  to  the  opposite  shore ;  and  the 
cloud  as  a  pillar  of  fire  between  them  and  the 
Egyptians  ;  so  they  only  had  water  on  their 
right  and  left,  as  two  walls.  However  many 
"  figures"  there  are  in  the  passage,  there  is  no 
figure  of  immersion  or  dipping  in  the  case. 
The  Holy  Spirit  has  seen  fit  to  give  us  the 
mode  in  which  these  people  "  were  baptized 
unto  Moses."  In  Psalm  Ixxvii,  16,  17,  where 
the  psalmist  refers  to  God's  having  "  led  his 
people  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron,"  he 
has  these  remarkable  words  :  "  The  waters  saw 
thee,  O  God,  the  waters  saw  thee  ;  they  were 
afraid ;  the  depths  also  were  troubled.  The 
clouds  poured  out  water."  That  the  passage  of 
Israel  through  the  Red  Sea  is  referred  to  here, 
no  man  of  candour  will  doubt  who  reads  the 
passage  with  attention.  In  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion. How  were  they  baptized  in  the  sea  'i  we 
remark.  As  the  action  of  a  natural  agent,  the 
wind  was  employed  to  make  a  passage  for 
them ;  the  extreme  agitation  of  the  waters  by 
it  would  occasion  a  mist  or  spray;  by  this,  as 
they  passed  along,  they  v/ould  be  sprinkled ; 
and  this,  I  presume,  is  what  the  apostle  means 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  117 

when  he  says  they  were  baptized  in,  or  by  the 
sea.  But  if  our  Baptist  brethren  be  dissatisfied 
with  this  explanation,  it  is  impossible  to  njake 
the  history  bend  to  their  views  :  the  Israelites 
could  not  be  dipped,  plunged,  or  overwhelmed 
in  the  sea,  if  the  statement  be  true  that  they 
went  through  it  on  dry  ground.  Here  is  an- 
other indisputable  proof  that  baptism  cannot 
mean  immersion  only. 

The  only  immersion  on  that  occasion  was 
the  overwhelming  of  the  Egyptians  in  the  deep, 
"  who  sank  like  lead  in  the  mighty  waters,"  and 
who  were  seen  not  again,  until  they  floated  up 
upon  the  shores  of  the  Red  Sea,  as  evidences 
of  Jehovah's  wrath. 

But  we  shall  be  told  that  the  baptism  of 
Israel  to  Moses  was  "  not  Christian  baptism." 
This  is  granted,  and  yet  that  does  not  invalidate 
the  argument  drawn  from  the  case  ;  because 
the  greatest  scholar,  and  best  critic  of  all  the 
apostles,  St.  Paul,  calls  it  baptism.  But  Mr.  B. 
says,  "  The  Scriptures  know  nothing  for  bap- 
tism but  immersion."  There  he  is  fairly  at 
issue  with  the  apostle  Paul.  I  w411  not  insult 
the  reader's  piety  and  good  sense,  by  even  inti- 
mating which  of  the  witnesses  is  most  entitled 
to  credit. 

Most  of  the  evidence  which  our  Baptist 
friends  bring  to  support  their  mode  of  baptism 
is  brought  from  what  is  said  of  John's  bap- 
tizing in  Jordan,  at  Enon-,  from  the  case  of 
the  eunuch,  baptized  by  Philip ;  and  from  the 
passages  in  Rom.  vi,  4,  and  Col.  ii,  12,  where 


118  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

the  apostle  speaks  of  being  buried  with  Christ 
by  baptism,  &c. 

We  might  refuse,  if  we  thought  it  necessary, 
all  the  evidence  brought  from  John's  baptism ; 
as  it  is  clear  from  the  Scriptures,  and  especially 
from  Acts  xix,  that  ^'John's  haptisirC''  was  essen- 
tially different  from  the  "  Christian  haptismy 
Of  this  truth  the  celebrated  Robert  Hall,  of  the 
Baptist  Church,  was  fully  convinced ;  as  the 
reader  may  see  by  a  reference  to  his  Works, 
vol.  i,  pp.  372,  376. 

But  as  Baptist  preachers  and  people  do  not 
agree  among  themselves  with  regard  to  John's 
baptism,  and  as  we  wish  to  allow  them  all  the 
evidence  they  can  with  any  fairness  claim,  we 
shall  not  avail  ourselves  of  the  advantage  above 
alluded  to. 

It  is  said  that  John  baptized  "  in  Jordan," 
also  "  in  the  wilderness  ;" — "  in  Bethabara,  be- 
yond Jordan  ;" — and  "  in  Enon  near  to  Salem," 
&c.  It  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  that  the  Greek 
particles,  rendered  in,  into,  out  of,  &c.,  have 
such  latitude  of  meaning,  and  are  translated  so 
variously,  that  nothing  certain  can  be  inferred 
in  this  controversy  from  their  use.  The  first 
sense  which  Parkhurst,  in  his  Greek  Lexicon, 
gives  to  "  apo,'^  is  from.  "  He  came  up  from 
the  water."  And  that  sense  is  given  it  in  this 
text :  "  Who  hath  warned  you  to  ^qq  from  (not 
out  of)  the  wrath  of  God."  And  "  eis"  has  the 
sense  of  to  or  unto,  in  the  following  scriptures, 
viz.,  in  Matt,  xv,  24,  "  I  am  not  sent  but  unto 
(not  into)  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel." 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  119 

Rom.  X,  10,  "With  the  heart,  man  believeth 
unto  (not  into)  righteousness."  Matt,  iii,  11, 
"  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  (not  in- 
to) repentance."  And  Matt,  xvii,  27,  "  Go  thou 
to  the  sea  (not  into)  and  cast  a  hook,"  &:c. 

The  preposition  "  en,"  rendered  in  Jordan,  is 
in  the  New  Testament  one  hundred  and  fifty- 
times  rendered  with ;  and  more  than  a  hundred 
times  rendered  at.  And  the  passage  would  be 
fairly  rendered  at  Jordan,  or  with  the  water 
of  Jordan.  And  with  regard  to  the  eunuch,  they 
went  down  to  the  water,  and  came  up  from  the 
water,  "tvould  be  as  correct  a  rendering  as  into 
and  out  of.  So  we  see  that  the  argument  of 
the  Baptists,  drawn  from  the  Greek  particles, 
evaporates  at  once,  and  we  are  left  to  deter- 
mine the  mode  of  baptism  from  other  evidence. 
Mr.  B.  seems  to  think,  that  to  discuss  these 
particles  is  a  "  small  business,"  but  concludes 
that  the  translators  were  "  honest''''  in  translating 
them,  and  that  "  in  their  primary  signification 
they  all  favour  immersion."  This  is  a  summary- 
mode,  such  as  we  have  on  page  21  of  his  Ser- 
mon ;  where,  although  he  rejects  and  ridicules 
*'  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,"  yet  declares — 
*'  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  preponderance 
of  that  testimony  is  most  decidedly  in  our  fa- 
vour." He  thinks  that  John's  being  at  Jordan 
and  Enon  is  conclusive  evidence  that  he  bap- 
tized the  people  by  immersion.  Then  I  reply, 
that  Ananias  baptizing  Saul  of  Tarsus  in  a  pri- 
vate house,  and  Peter  baptizing  Cornelius  and 
others  in  a  private  house,  is  conclusive  evidence 


120  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  Ax\D 

that  neither  Saul  nor  Cornelius  were  immersed; 
for,  reader,  did  you  ever  hear  or  know  of  a  Bap- 
tist preacher  immersing  people  in  a  private  house? 
On  the  contrary,  I  have  both  heard  and  read  of 
persons  being  baptized  by  pouring,  at  creeks 
and  rivers. 

It  cannot  be  shown,  we  presume,  that  one  of 
those  who  received  John's  baptism  was  in  the 
water  as  much  as  ankle  deep  ;  as  we  shall  now 
proceed  to  show.  "  The  chief  weight  of  many 
arguments  is  owing  to  our  inattention  to  the 
differences  of  times,  places,  circumstances, 
manners,  &c, ;  modernize,  and  lay  the  scene 
of  John's  ministry  in  this  country,  as  most,  I 
presume,  do,  and  then  examine  your  ideas,  and 
see  what  truth  there  is  in  them.  You  provide 
him  with  a  large  church  or  meeting  house,  in 
a  large  town,  or  populous  country  place ;  he 
preaches,  his  congregation  is  affected,  and  at 
the  close  of  the  service  they  request  liim  to 
baptize  them  ;  he  marches  at  the  head  of  them 
to  a  river  for  this  purpose.  You  never  see 
ministers  going  with  either  adults  or  infants  to 
a  river  to  sprinkle  them,  but  you  see  ministers, 
"who  call  themselves  Baptists,  going  down  into 
rivers  to  immerse  people,  and  you  conclude 
John  the  Baptist  used  immersion.  John,  how- 
ever, did  not  live  in  a  large  town,  but  in  the 
wilderness  ;  he  had  neither  church  nor  meeting 
house  to  hold  the  people  who  .resorted  to  him  ; 
the  scene  of  his  ministry  is  the  side  of  a  river; 
he  preached  out  of  doors.  Geographers  inform 
us  that  the  banks  of  the  river  Jordan  abounded 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  121 

with  trees  ;  and  as  the  cUmate  was  hot,  he  and 
his  congregation  would  surely  take  their  station 
under  their  shade,  and  enjoy  the  atmosphere, 
which  would  be  cool,  in  consequence  of  its 
vicinity  to  the  water.  Now,  suppose  he  used 
sprinkling,  where,  under  these  circumstances, 
could  he  so  conveniently  and  agreeably  perform 
it  as  in  the  river  just  at  hand?" — Isaacs  on 
Baptism,  p.  47. 

"  But  why,"  it  is  asked,  "  did  John  take  his 
station  beside  a  river,  or  at  Enon,  where  there 
was  much  water,  if  it  were  not  for  the  conve- 
nience of  baptizing?"  I  answer — 1st,  Because 
it  was  a  central  situation.  "  Then  went  out  to 
him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
ROUND  ABOUT  JoRDAN."  As  John  did  not  itine- 
rate much,  it  was  important  to  select  a  situation 
for  the  exercise  of  his  ministry  at  which  it 
would  be  most  convenient  for  the  surrounding 
inhabitants  to  attend.  2d,  When  we  look  at 
the  immense  numbers  who  resorted  from  all 
parts  to  hear  John,  it  would  be  absolutely  ne- 
cessary for  him  to  take  his  station  where  there 
was  "  much  water^''  supposing  but  little  was 
needed  for  baptism.  "  Then  went  out  unto 
him  ALL  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusa- 
lem, and  ALL  the  region  round  about  Jordan," 
Mark  v,  4  ;  Matt,  iii,  5.  Make  what  deductions 
you  will  from  these  statements,  you  cannot 
make  any  common  sense  of  the  words,  if  you 
do  not  suppose  the  numbers  to  have  been  very 
great.-  They  would  not  all  come  on  foot ;  water 
would  be  wanted  for  drink  for  the  people,  for 


122  OBLIGATIOxN,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

culinary  purposes,  for  their  various  ablutions, 
and  for  their  cattle.  And  as  they  flocked  in 
vast  numbers  to  John,  many  of  them,  no  doubt, 
had  to  wait  .for  days  or  weeks  before  the  rite 
could  be  administered  to  them ;  and  during  all 
this  time,  in  the  heat  of  Palestine,  great  quan- 
tities of  water  would  be  necessary  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  multitude.  In  our  cli- 
mate, although  much  cooler,  we  always  select 
a  place  for  camp  meetings,  when  such  can  be 
had,  where  there  is  "  much  watery  And  we 
sometimes  appoint  them  near  rivers,  although 
we  expect  not  more  than  five  thousand  persons 
to  attend  them ;  yet  it  is  not  our  calculation 
to  immerse  one  individual  of  the  thousands  that 
attend. 

If  the  reader  will  consult  2  Chron.  xxxii,  3,4, 
he  will  see  a  case  in  point.  When  Sennacherib 
invaded  this  very  coimtry  where  John  was 
preaching  and  baptizing,  we  read  that  "  they 
stopped  all  the  fountains,  and  the  brook  that 
ran  through  the  midst  of  the  land,  saying.  Why 
should  the  kings  of  Assyria  come  and  find  much 
water?-''  It  was  thought  the  Assyrian  army 
would  need  much  water ;  but  no  one  ever  sus- 
pected their  king  intended  to  baptize  them  in  it. 
No,  they  wanted  it  for  other  purposes  ;  and  so 
did  the  thousands  who  attended  the  ministry  of 
John,  at  Jordan  and  Enon. 

The  reader  should  bear  in  mind,  that  while 
Christ,  and  the  twelve,  and  the  seventy,  were 
going  about  into  the  towns,  villages,  &.c.»  John 
was  comparatively  local  in  his  ministry,  which 


MODE   OF   13APT18M.  123 

made  the  multitude  greater,  and  required  them 
to  come  a  greater  distance ;  and  often  to  remain 
longer  to  accomplish  the  purpose  of  their  visit 
Ihe  PEOPLE  CAME  to  Johi ;  Christ  and  Ids  mi~ 
msters  ^ve.vt  to  the  people.  Again  we  say, 
It  IS  utterly  incredible  that  John  could  have 
immersed  the  vast  multitudes  that  came  to  him 
besides  domg  the  preaching  and  answering  the 
questions  put  to  him,  and  (according  to  the 
practice  of  modern  Baptists)  receiving  and 
judging  of  the  experience  of  the  candidates. 
1  suppose  they  will  not  deny  that  they  gave  in 
an  experience  to  John,  especially  as  Mr.  Bene- 
dict, in  his  History  of  the  Baptists,  calls  John 
their  "  ancient  brother^ 

Robert  Hall  felt  the  weight  of  this  objection 
to  immersion ;  drawn  from  the  number  to  be 
baptized  Hence  he  says,  "  It  is  by  no  means 
certain,  however,  that  John  was  the  only  person 
who  performed  that  ceremony ;  indeed,  when 
we  consider  the  prodigious  multitudes  that  flock- 
ed to  him,  the  'inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  Judea 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,'  it  seems 
scarcehj  practicable  ;  he  most  probably  employed 
coadjutors,"  &c.— Hall's  Works,  vol.  i,  p.  361 

Now  I  suppose,  reader,  that  I  have  as  o-ood 
a  right  as  Mr.  Hall  to  find  a  solution  to'tliis 
diftculty.  The  Scriptures  do  not  say  one  word 
about  a  single  coadjutor  employed  by  the  Baptist. 
1  account  for  his  being  able  to  bantize  the  '^pro- 
digious multitudes^  as  Mv.  H.  calls  them,  on 
another  principle,  viz.,  he  administered  the  or- 
dmance  by  sprinkling  or  pouring.     This  was 


124  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Mr.  Wesley's  view  of  it.  See  his  notes  on 
Matt,  iii,  6.  "  It  seems,"  says  he,  "  that  they 
stood  in  ranks  on  the  edge  of  the  river,  and 
John,  passing  along  before  them,  cast  water  on 
their  heads  or  faces,  by  which  means  he  might 
baptize  many  thousands  in  a  day." 

It  is  not  supposed  that  John  exercised  his 
ministry  more  than  twelve  or  eighteen  months, 
and  yet,  at  a  moderate  calculation,  he  must 
have  baptized  one  million  of  people  ;  for  Mr.  B. 
supposes,  Sermon,  p.  35,  that  Jerusalem  alone 
'  contained  a  million  of  people ;"  then  take 
"  Judea,  and  the  region  round  about  Jordan," 
&c.,  and  allow  that  one  half  of  the  inhabitants 
received  his  baptism,  which  we  think  not  un- 
likely ;  then  we  ask,  during  how  many  hours 
in  the  day  could  any  man  preach,  and  stand  in 
the  water,  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  by  im- 
mersion ?  We  will  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment, that  he  could  endure  this  labour  six  hours 
each  day,  for  eighteen  months.  And  say  that 
he  baptized  as  expeditiously  as  the  gentleman 
in  Culpepper  did,  of  whom  Mr.  B.  speaks,  Ser- 
mon, p.  35,  "  who  baptized  seventy-five  persons 
very  decently  in  twenty-five  minutes  ;" — I  say, 
suppose  all  this,  and  when  he  had  accomplished 
his  eighteen  months'  work,  at  the  rate  of  one 
thousand  and  eighty  each  day,  he  would  have 
given  the  ordinance  to  a  little  upward  of  half 
a  million.  What  Mr.  B.  says  about  its  taking 
"  no  more  time  to  baptize  hy  immersion  than  hy 
sprinkling, ^^  Sermon,  p.  35,  utterly  astonishes 
me.     Can  you  think,  gentle  reader,  that  this 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  125 

carries  upon  its  face  the  appearance  oi  proha- 
hility?  Again,  John,  as  the  son  of  a  Jewish 
priest,  would  most  likely  use  water  in  the  way 
in  which  it  was  commonly  used  among  the 
Jews,  i.  e.,  by  sprinkling.  And  if  it  be  said 
that  "  John's  baptism  was  from  heaven,"  I  reply, 
So  were  the  divers  baptisms  among  the  Jews. 
Heb.  ix,  10,  13.  And  as  the  Jewish  priests 
entered  upon  their  work  at  thirty  years  of  age, 
so  did  John.  And  using,  like  them,  an  applica- 
tion of  water  to  the  body,  as  an  emblem  of  moral 
purity ;  it  is  left  to  any  impartial  judgment, 
whether  he  is  most  rationally  supposed  to  have 
plunged  men  under  the  water,  (a  thing  unprac- 
tised among  them,)  or  whether  he  only  sprinkled 
or  poured  water  on  them,  a  rite  divinely  insti- 
tuted, and  every  day  familiarly  practised  in  that 
church.'^ — Towgood  on  Baptism,  p.  104.  And 
to  the  fact  that  John  came  as  the  harbinger  of 
the  Messiah,  about  to  appear,  for  whom  the 
Jews  were  all  anxiously  looking ;  so  much  so, 
that  they  inquired  of  him  "  if  he  were  the 
Christ ;" — I  say,  to  this  fact  may  be  attributed 
the  great  and  general  influx  of  disciples  to 
•John.  He  applied  sacramental  water  to  them, 
and  bid  them  repent,  reform,  and  look  for,  and 
believe  on  the  Messiah,  just  about  to  appear, 
who  w^ould  apply  the  Holy  Ghost  to  their  souls, 
as  he  had  applied  the  purifying  element  to  their 
bodies  ;  saying  to  all  the  people,  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  loith  water;  he  shall  baptize  you 
u-ith  the  Holy  Ghost.^'  Here  is  a  clear  intima- 
tion from  John  himself  that  the  water  was  ap- 


126  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

plied  to  the  suhject,  and  not  tlie  subject  applied 
to  the  water. 

What  John  calls  being  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Matt,  iii,  11,  Christ  calls,  being  baptized 
with  the  Hoi?/  Ghost,  Acts  i,  5.  And  Peter  calls 
it  being  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  Acts  ii, 
16.  And  in  Acts  xi,  17,  33,  it  is  said  to  be 
"  POURED  out"  and  "  shed  forth."  And  in 
Acts  X,  44,  it  is  said,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
THEM  ;  and  also  in  xi,  15,  Peter  says,  it  fell 
on  them.  Now  I  suppose  that  the  word  bap- 
tize, in  the  mouth  of  John  the  Baptist,  is  equal 
to  the  word  baptize  in  the  mouth  of  St.  Peter  ; 
and  equal  also  to  the  same  word  in  the  mouth 
of  Jesus  Christ.  Here  I  put,  not  a  lexicographer ^ 
or  an  army  of  them,  against  Dr.  Carson  and 
Mr.  Broaddus,  but,  what  is  of  infinitely  more 
weight,  (for,  however  great  the  witness  of  men 
may  be,  "  the  witness  of  God  is  greater,")  John, 
Peter,  and  Christ,  all  against  these  gentle- 
men. I  hope,  reader,  you  will  never  become 
so  learned  as  to  declare  that  pouring  is  no  bap- 
tism,  when  you  have  the  authority  of  Christ 
himself  for  using  the  word  in  the  sense  of 
pouring,  viz.,  "  Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence."  This  is 
the  prediction  of  Christ ;  and  it  had  its  fulfil- 
ment on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  the  pouring 
out  and  shedding  forth  of  the  Spirit  upon 
the  apostles.  Now,  candid  reader,  was  there 
any  thing  like  immersion  here  ?  And  if  John 
understood  the  language  which  he  used  when 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  and  if  the 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  127 

sign  is  to  agree  with  the  thing  signified,  the 
shadoin  with  the  subslance,  how  could  John  give 
water  baptism  by  immersion,  when  he  knew  that 
Christ  would  pour  out,  or  shed  forth,  the 
Spirit  ? 

But  Mr.  B.,  Sermon,  p.  39,  thinks  it  very 
"  absurd"  to  suppose  that  "  the  manner  of  the 
immaterial  Spirit  should  be  represented  by  the 
use  that  is  made  of  a  material  element."  How 
absurd — "  strange  enough  is  the  argument" 
drawn  from  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit.  But, 
unfortunately  for  this  gentleman,  on  the  very 
next  page  he  is  guilty  of  this  very  ah  surdity. 
Hear  him,  in  quoting  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25 — "  Then 
will  /  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,"  &c.  He 
says,  "  The  allusion  is,  unquestionably,  to  those 
divine  influences  by  which  men  are  cleansed 
from  their  moral  defilement."  "  Divine  influ- 
ences," are  they  immaterial?  or  has  Mr.  B. 
found  some  mode  of  purifying  men  without  the 
immaterial  Spirit  ? — some  "  divine  influences" 
that  are  not  of  the  Spirit  of  Gcd  ?  He  quotes 
the  very  text  that  is  against  him,  and  says, 
"  God  himself  is  to  sprinkle  clean  water ;"  and 
this  clean  water  to  he  applied  by  sprinkling 
represents  the  "  divine  influences,"  Mr.  B.  him- 
self being  judge.  But  then  it  is  "  absurd"  to 
represent  the  "  immaterial  Spirif'  by  the  "  ma- 
terial element  v*^ater."  So  God  himself  is  re- 
presented here  as  guilty  of  this  "  absurdity." 
For  if  the  question  be  asked.  How  will  God 
cleanse  them  from  their  idols  ?  the  answer  is, 
With  "  clean  water. ^^     In  what  manner  will  he 


128  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

apply  the  element  ?  the  answer  is,  "  I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  ^ipon  you."  It  is  strange 
that  men  should  thus  talk,  not  only  without 
book,  but  against  the  book  of  God.  In  such 
cases  they  demonstrate  nothing  but  their  own 
folly,  or  the  weakness  and  hopelessness  of  their 
cause. 

The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  by  "  pouring,"  and 

"  SHEDDING  FORTH,"  and  "  FALLING  UPON,"  &C., 

has  always  been  very  embarrassing  to  our  Bap- 
tist friends.  Mr.  B.,  Sermon,  p.  39,  labours 
hard  to  evade  the  matter,  by  attempting  to  show 
that  the  disciples,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were 
immersed  in  the  Spirit.  He  asks,  "  Were  they 
immersed  in  the  Spirit,  when  the  Spirit  filled 
the  room  where  they  were  sitting,  or  were  they 
not?  I  am  willing  your  common  sense  should 
decide."  Here  he  will  have  it,  that  though  the 
Spirit  was  "  poured,"  it  was  poured  until  the 
room  was  filled,  so  that  they  luere  immersed  in 
it.  It  is  strange  that  Christian  men  will  persist 
in  tying  down  the  word  baptize  to  one  meaning 
only,  and  that  at  the  expense  of  the  word  of 
God,  and  even  of  common  sense.  For  that  he 
has  "  erred  in  vision,"  or  "  stumbled  in  judg- 
ment," the  reader  can  clearly  see,  by  a  refer- 
ence to  Acts  ii.  Not  one  word  is  said  there 
about  the  Spirit  '■''filling  the  house,''^  nor  of  its 
"  overwhelming  the  disciples."  The  language 
in  Acts  ii,  1,  2,  is,  "  And  when  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one 
accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there  came 
A  sound  from  heaven  as  a  rushing  mighty 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  129 

wind,  a7id  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they 
were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  If  it  is  said  the  house  was 
filled,  and  they  were  therefore  immersed,  the 
questions  may  be  asked,  With  what  was  the 
house  filled?  With  luhat  were  they  immersed? 
In  English,  it  is  expressed  by  the  pronoun 
"  IT,"—"  it  filled  all  the  house  ;"  the  Greek 
has  no  pronoun.  Well,  what  is  the  antecedent 
to  "zY.?"  I  answer,  the  word  ^^  sound y  The 
word  in  the  Greek  is  "  echos,"  an  echo,  a  rever- 
berating sound. 

So  it  seems  Mr.  B,  has  only  erred  in  vision, 
so  far  as  to  mistake  a  sound,  an  echo,  for  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Is,  then,  a  reverberating  sound, 
surrounding  the  bodies  of  the  apostles,  and  the 
Spirit  of  God  falling  upon  their  hearts,  the 
same  thing?    The  reader  can  judge. 

The  sound  filled  the  house,  and — if  you 
please,  though  it  sounds  rather  odd — they  were 
immersed  in  the  sound.  But  this  is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  the  cloven  tongues,  or  the  Hohj 
Spirit,  mentioned  in  the  following  verses 
"  They  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Gpiost." 
The  SOUND  filled  the  place  ;  the  Spirit  filled 
the  persons;  the  sound  was  without  them;  the 
Spirit  was  vnthin  them. 

The   old   prophet    did   not    commit    such   a 

blunder  as  to  mistake  the  sound  of  wind  for  the 

voice   of  the  Spirit.     "  x\nd  behold,  the  Lord 

passed  by,  and  a  great  and  strong  wind  rent  the 

9 


130  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AND 

mountains,  and  brake  in  pieces  the  rocks,  before 
the  Lord ;  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the  wind," 
1  Kings  xix,  IL  As  in  this  case,  the  wind 
came  before  the  Lord  spake  to  the  prophet  in 
*'  a  still  small  voice  ;"  so,  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, the  rushing  mighty  wind  came  first,  and 
filled  the  house,  then  the  Lord  poured  out 
upon  them  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  orantinff,  for  the  sake  of  arorument,  that 
the  Spirit  is  intended  by  the  sound,  the  Baptist 
manner  of  administering  the  ordinance  is  not 
helped  by  it.  For  the  sound,  or  Spirit,  came 
Dowx,  DESCENDING  upon  them.  The  baptismal 
element  came  upon  the  subjects.  They  did  not 
descend  into  it.  The  element  was  active  ;  the 
subjects  were  passive  ;  which  exactly  corre- 
sponds with  our  mode.  In  the  mode  of  Mr.  B. 
this  order  is  completely  reuer^ec?.  The  view  of 
Mr.  Broaddus,  on  this  case,  makes  against  a 
favourite  notion  of  many  of  his  Baptist  brethren, 
viz.,  that  the  baptism  promised  by  Christ,  and 
given  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  was  restricted 
to  the  apostles  as  the  subjects;  and  to  the  ex- 
traordinary or  miraculous  gifts  conferred  upon 
them ;  and  not  to  the  ordinary  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  conferred  upon  all  Christians.  For  if, 
as  he  says,  "  the  mind  was  the  Spirit,^''  then  all 
present  were  equally  immersed  with  the  apos- 
tles ;  and  we  learn  from  verse  15  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapter,  that  "  the  number  of  the  names 
together  were  about  a  hundred  and  twenty^ 
"  And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully 
come,  they  were  all,  with  one  accord,  in  one 


I 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  13^1 

PLACE."  "  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sonnd 
from  heaven,"  &c.  So  that  they  all  obtained 
the  extraordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit.  It 
is  not  admitted  by  those  who  refer  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  to  its  extraordinary  influences,  that 
any  received  it,  except  the  twelve  apostles  ;  yet 
Mr.  B.'s  interpretations  of  the  matter  give  mira- 
culous powers  to  them  all,  one  hundred  and 
twenty  in  number.  Both  he  and  they  are  wrong, 
for  the  idnd  was  not  the  Spirit;  and  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  confined  to  the  apos- 
tles :  for  Joel  said,  "  It  shall  be  poured  out  upon 
ALL  FLESH,"  verse  17;  and  Peter  said,  "The 
promise  is  to  all,  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  caU,''^  verse  39.  Reader,  no  man  in  his 
senses  ever  supposed  that  "  all  flesh," — "  all 
that  the  Lord  should  call''"  to  be  Christians, — 
were  to  receive  the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  You  see,  then,  with  what  pro- 
priety our  Baptist  friends  attempt  to  turn  into 
ridicule  the  practice  of  Pedobaptists  praying 
for  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  every  case  Avhere  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of 
as  having  been  given,  it  is  said  to  have  been 

"  SHED     FORTH,"   Or    "  POURED    OUT,"   Or   "  CAME 

ox  THEM,"  or  "  FELL  ON  ALL  THEM  Avhich  heard 
the  word,"  "  On  the  Gentiles,  also,  was  poured 
out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Acts  x,  44,  45. 
And  in  xi,  15, 16,  Peter  says,  "And  as  I  began 
to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  ox  them,  as  on 
us  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered  I  the 
word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed 
BAPTIZED  u-ith  WATER  ;  but  ye  shall  be   bap- 


132  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

TizED  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  There  is  no 
ivind,  or  sound,  said  to  have  filled  the  house  of 
Cornelius,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured 
out  upon  the  Gentiles.  This,  notwithstanding, 
Peter  calls  a  hoptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
pouring  out  or  falling  upon  them. 

Query — Did  Peter  give  them  loater  baptism 
by  immersion,  in  full  view  of  the  fact  that  God 
had  just  given  them  spiritual  baptism  by  pour- 
ing?    It  is  scarcely  credible. 

It  is  enough  for  me  to  be  satisfied  that  I  fol- 
low the  example  of  hirn  who  baptizes  with  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  that  I  apply  the  water  to  meji's 
bodies  as  he  applies  the  Spirit  to  their  souls. 
Thus  a  spiritual  baptism  will  be  administered 
in  the  church  to  the  end  of  time  ;  and  this  ordi- 
nance will  be  given  according  to  the  Pedobap- 
tist  mode  ;  for  it  is  written,  "  I  will  pour  out  my 
Spirit  upon  all  fteshy — See  Isaacs  on  Baptism, 
pp.  57,  58. 

So  much  for  Mr.  B.  and  his  "  immersion  in 
the  Spirit."  Again  :  Most  of  the  cases  of  bap- 
tism recorded  in  the  Acts  furnish  strong,  not 
to  say  conclusive,  evidence  that  they  were  not 
baptized  by  immersion,  but  in  some  other  way. 

I  am  aw^are  that  our  Baptist  friends  have  a 
wonderful  facility  at  finding  '^  streams,^'  ''baths,^^ 
^^tanhs,^^  ^^ pools,''  "  hogsheads,"  &c..  Sermon, 
p.  35,  whenever  they  read  of  a  case  of  baptism. 
Unfortunately  for  their  cause,  however,  they 
very  often  cannot  agree  among  themselves  con- 
cerning the  means  or  facilities  for  giving  the 
ordinance  by  immersion  in  the  particular  case. 


MODE    or  BAPTIciM.  133 

Hence,  when  you  ask,  Where  were  the  three 
thousand  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ? 
each  sets  his  imagination  to  work  to  find  a 
baptizing  place.  3*Ir.  B.  says.  Sermon,  p.  38, 
"The  city  was  watered  by  the  brook  Kidron, 
and  the  pools  of  Siloam  and  Bethesda,  which 
would  furnish  an  abundant  supply  of  water." 
In  the  warm  season  the  brook  Kidron  was 
generally  dry,  and  travellers  say  that  it  is  dry 
nine  months  in  the  year ;  and  that  those  three 
thousand  were  baptized  in  warm  weather  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  the  feast  of  Pentecost 
took  place  at  the  close  of  wheat  harvest.  This 
stream  was  always  inconsiderable,  except  after 
heavy  rains  :  and  these  made  the  stream  muddy 
and  unfit  for  bathing.  Mr.  B.  says  that  the  filth 
from  the  city  did  not  run  up  stream,  and  there- 
fore they  might  have  gone  above  the  city  for 
the  purpose  of  immersion.  But  the  reader  will 
recollect  that  this  gentleman  has  said  "  Jerusa- 
lem contained  a  million  of  inhabitants ;"  and, 
according  to  Strabo,  was  about  sixty  furlongs, 
or  about  eight  miles  in  length.  Then,  sup- 
posing the  preaching  to  have  taken  place  in 
the  temple,  as  is  most  likely;  and  admitting 
that  temple  to  have  stood  in  the  midst  of  the 
city;  it  would  have  been  a  journey  of  at  least 
four  miles  to  have  gotten  to  Kidron  above  the 
city.  Some  of  our  Baptist  friends,  feeling  the 
difficulty  connected  with  the  supposition  that 
they  were  baptized  in  Kidron,  (especially  as 
the  passage  says  not  one  word  about  their  leav- 
ing the  place  o(  preaching  in  order  to  receive 


134  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

the  ordinance,)  and  their  theory  requiring  them 
to  find  some  means  whereby  to  immerse  the 
three  thousand,  have  supposed  that  they  were 
baptized  in  the  "  brazen  lavei\'"  or  in  the  vessels 
used  by  the  Jews  for  purification,  &c.  The 
reader  v/ill  recollect  that  these  public  and  pri- 
vate bathing  places  were  in  the  keeping  of  the 
enemies  of  Christ — those  who  had  been  his 
betrayers  and  murderers.  It  is  not  likely  that 
thei/  would  allow  Peter,  and  the  other  apostles, 
to  use  them  for  the  baptizing  of  their  converts. 
If  there  had  been  a  probability  that  Peter  wished 
to  drown  those  who  had  received  the  doctrine 
of  Christ's  Messiahship,  then,  indeed,  he  might 
possibly  have  been  permitted  to  use  their  baths. 
Moreover,  the  manner  of  purifying  among  the 
Jews  must  have  been — generally,  at  least — by 
sprinkling  or  pouring,  as  we  may  learn  from 
John  ii,  6  :  *'  And  there  were  set  six  water  pots 
of  stone,  after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of 
the  Jews."  We  have  no  doubt  there  was  water 
enough  in  Jerusalem  to  immerse  ten  thousand 
people,  and  we  should  believe  they  were  bap- 
tized by  that  mode,  if  we  had  any  evidence  of 
it.  But,  in  the  total  absence  of  all  evidence, 
we  cannot  take  the  suppositions  of  our  Baptist 
friends  for  proof 

Again,  the  cases  of  Cornelius  and  his  family, 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  those  that  Paul  met  at 
Ephesus,  Acts  xix,  and  the  jailer  and  his 
family  at  Philippi,  were  all  cases  where  the 
ordinance  was  administered  without  so  much 
as  a  "  Ja?/i"  or  ^^  cistern''^  being  mentioned.     But 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  135 

the  immersionists  are  always  ready  with  the 
means  to  immerse  ;  they  find  a  "  bathing  tub" 
in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  and  a  tank,  or  cistern, 
in  the  jail  at  Philippi,  and  a  hath  in  the  private 
house  where  Ananias  found  penitent  Saul  of 
Tarsus.  I  would  just  suggest,  that  if  they  were 
to  apply  the  reasoning  which  they  use  with 
regard  to  "  infant  baptism"  to  these  cases,  it 
would  ruin  their  own  cause. 

The  baptism  of  Lydia  and  her  family,  and  of 
the  eunuch,  are  all  the  Christian  baptisms  that 
were  performed  out  of  doors,  so  far  as  we  have 
any  information.  On  the  case  of  Lydia,  Mr.  B.. 
Sermon,  p.  37,  makes  a  remark  calculated  to 
mislead  the  reader.  "  It  is  worthy  of  remark," 
says  he,  "  that  the  sermon  which  produced  her 
conversion  was  preached  by  the  river  side,  and 
that  she  and  her  family  were  baptized  before 
they  went  into  her  house.  As  they  were  at 
the  river  side,  they  could  readily  be  immersedP 
And  I  say,  as  they  were  near  the  water,  they 
could  be  readily  sprinkled.  If  the  reader  will 
be  at  the  pains  to  look  at  Acts  xvi,  13-15,  he 
will  see  plainly  that  Mr.  B.'s  remark  is  unfair, 
and  makes  an  erroneous  impression.  The  state 
of  the  case  was  simply  this  :  Paul,  Silas,  Ti- 
mothy, and  Luke,  in  their  travel,  came  to  Phi- 
lippi ;  they  remained  there  "  certain  days  ;"  and 
when  the  sabbath  came,  they  "walked  "  out  of 
the^^  idolatrous  city,  and  found  a  few  women  by 
the  river  side  holding  a  prayer  meeting.  What, 
it  may  be  asked,  induced  these  women  to  go 
out  there  to  worship  ?     Not  to  receive  baptism. 


136  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

candid  reader ;  that,  in  all  probability,  was  not 
in  all  their  thoughts  when  they  went  to  the 
river  side.  They  were  either  Jews  or  prose- 
lytes, who  were  not  suffered  to  worship  the 
true  God  within  the  limits  of  the  heathen  city. 
And  when  the  apostles  went  out,  and,  as  by 
accident,  fell  in  with  these  devout  women,  they 
"  sat  down  and  spake  to  them."  x\nd  while 
Paul  was  speaking,  "  the  Lord  opened  Lydia's 
heart."  And  he,  pursuing  the  *'  apostolic  pat- 
tern," gave  the  ordinance  of  baptism  just  where 
the  word  took  effect.  When  the  word  took 
effect  on  the  people  out  of  doors,  they  did  not 
go  into  the  house  to  administer  the  ordinance  ; 
and  when  it  took  effect  in  the  house,  they  did  not 
go  out  of  doors  to  give  the  ordinance  !  If  Paul 
had  been  a  preacher  of  the  modern  Baptist 
stamp,  and  had  worked  by  their  "  pattern,"  he 
would  not  have  given  Lydia  baptism  until  she 
had  related  a  "  Christian  experience,"  such  as 
should  be  considered  "  evangelical ;"  and  per- 
haps not  until  she  had  waited  for  weeks  or 
months,  to  be  certain  that  she  was  not  deceived. 
Paul's  practice  in  this  case  was  just  such  as  a 
Pedobaptist's  would  have  been.  They  never  go 
from  water  in  order  to  baptize.  And  he  bap- 
tized Lydia  and  her  family  at  the  ^' river  side,^* 
not  IN  the  river,  before  they  went  into  the 
house,  or  even  into  the  city. 

Reader,  this  presents  a  striking  contrast  with 
a  case  which  occurred  under  the  administration 
of  a  Baptist  preacher,  not  fifty  miles  from  where 
Mr.  B.  now  lives.     A  candidate  presented  him- 


MODE    OF   BAl'lISJI.  137 

self  in  the  "  church  meeting,*'  and  related  his 
"  experience  ;"  from  which  it  appeared  he  had 
been  convicted  several  years  before,  and  converted 
some  twelve  months,  or  more,  prior  to  his  offering 
himself  for  baptism.  The  preacher  was  highly- 
delighted  with  the  delay;  pronounced  it  an 
"  apostolical  experience," — "  the  work  not  of  a 
few  days,  but  of  years ;^^  and  admitted  him  to 
the  ordinance.  So  he  understood  the  "  apostolic 
pattern."  I  leave  it  to  the  candour  and  common 
sense  of  the  reader,  whether  the  New  Testa- 
ment furnishes  any  such  case  as  the  above  !. 
Saul  of  Tarsus  was  baptized  on  the  third  day 
after  his  conviction,  and  that  is  the  longest 
delay  we  read  of.  In  justice  to  Mr.  B.,  I  must 
say,  he  is  not  the  preacher  referred  to. 

On  the  case  of  the  jailer,  Acts  xvi,  23  to  40, 
Mr.  B.,  Sermon,  p.  37,  has  attempted  a  strange 
imposition  upon  tlie  reader.  He  does  indeed 
"  correct  the  diction  of  the  Spirit  by  that  of  the 
party,"  in  the  language  of  Mr.  G.  Campbell,  as 
quoted  by  Mr.  B.  Putting  certain  words  in 
capital  letters,  he  makes  an  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  jailer  and  his  family  went  out  to  a  place 
where  there  was  water  sufficient  to  immerse 
them.  I  was  more  convinced  from  this  part  of 
Mr.  B.'s  sermon  than  from  any  other,  that  he 
considered  his  cause  in  danger.  I  request  the 
reader  to  take  up  his  Bible,  the  plain  man's 
lexicon,  and  just  look  at  the  passage  in  the 
spirit  of  candour,  and  he  will  see,  without  the 
wisdom  of  Solomon,  that  this  gentleman  has 
attempted  to  make  the  passage  speak  a  language 


138  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

which  Luke,  the  writer,  never  intended.  He 
has  put  the  words  ^^  brought''^  and  ^'- outp  and 
*■'- brought  them  into  his  house^''  in  capitals,  and 
says,  "  As  to  the  facilities  for  obtaining  water, 
the  river  Strymon,  as  geographers  tell  us,  ran 
through  the  city,  where  water  could  be  had, 
even  if  the  jailer  had  no  bathing  cistern  on  his 
premises  ;"  and  then  says,  "  I  have  shown  that 
the  jailer,  and  Paul,  and  Silas,  went  out  of  the 
house  to  administer  baptism ;  and  though  they 
should  have  to  go  live  miles  to  a  river  or  bath, 
I  will  put  them  to  that  trouble,  before  I  will 
consent  that  baptizo  shall  be  deprived  of  the 
meaning  which  Professor  Stuart  says  '  all  lexi- 
cographers and  critics  of  any  note  have  assigned 
to  it.'  "  Professor  Stuart  says  just  the  contrary, 
as  I  have  shown  in  another  place.  Mr.  B.  pro- 
ceeds :  "  But  the  truth  is,  to  a  mind  disposed  to 
be  governed  by  the  plain,  common  sense  mean- 
ing of  the  language  of  Scripture,  there  will  be 
no  difficulty  in  finding  water  for  immersion 
within  reach  of  the  jailer's  house,  or  indeed  in 
his  house,  prepared  for  the  purpose  in  a  hogs- 
head, if  it  were  not  so  fully  stated  that  they 
were  baptized  while  out  of  the  house"  Baptist 
preachers  heretofore  (so  far  as  I  am  informed) 
have  never  dreamed  that  they  were  baptized 
out  of  the  house,  but  have  invented  a  ^^cistern^^ 
or  '^tank'^  in  the  jail.  This  gentleman  has 
struck  out  a  new  course — invented  a  new  salvo 
for  the  case.  He  had  just  as  well  have  put  the 
words  "  thrust  them  into,"  in  verse  24,  in  capi- 
tals, to  prove  that  Paul  dipped  them  into  the 


r 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  1  39 

'^Sfrj/mo7i"  as  to  have  put  '^brought  theni  out," 
and  ''brought  them  into  his  house,^^  in  capitals, 
to  prove  that  they  went  out  to  a  baptizing  place. 
One  would  have  been  as  near  the  truth  as  the 
other.  And  these  are  the  men  who  stand  up 
and  tell  the  people  they  only  need  to  look  into 
the  New  Testament,  without  note  or  comment, 
to  see  "  the  law  of  baptism."  and  the  practice 
of  the  apostles  under  that  law.  "  The  Bible," 
say  they,  "  is  the  best  book  on  baptism." 

Most  commentators  give  the  text  first,  and 
then  the  explanation,  but  these  reverse  this  order. 
They  give  the  Baptist  comment  first,  and  then 
the  sacred  text.  The  comment  is,  "  The  word 
baptize  means  to  dip  or  immerse  onlyf^  and 
then  if  you  meet  with  a  text  like  the  one  under 
consideration,  where  it  is  difficult  to  find  water 
for  immersion,  then  you  must  apply  your  com- 
ment on  the  word  *'  baptize ;"  and  have  them 
plunged,  any  how,  even  if  you  immerse  them  in 
a  figure,  "  or  immerse  them  in  a  wind  or  sound,^^ 
for  the  Spirit,  or  have  them  go  to  the  river 
"  Strymon,"  or  even  five  miles  at  midnight ; 
and  if  you  cannot  see  that  they  were  really  out 
of  doors,  you  can  immerse  them  "  in  a  hogs- 
head" of  water,  prepared  for  the  purpose. 

I  will  now  give  the  reader  a  view  of  this  case 
as  it  stands  in  the  passage  referred  to  above. 
In  verse  23,  we  find  that  "  the  magistrates  laid 
many  stripes  on  Paul  and  Silas,  and  cast  them 
into  prison,  charging  the  jailer  to  keep  them 
safely."  In  verse  24,  we  find,  "  he  having  re- 
ceived such  a  charcre.  thrust  them  i7ito  the  inner 


140  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

prison,  and  made  their  feet  fast  in  the  stocks." 
I  ask,  Where  are  they  now?  You  say  they  are 
in.  the  inner  prison,  or  dungeon.  Very  good. 
When  God  had  shaken  the  jail  with  an  earth- 
quake, verse  26,  and  the  doors  flew  open,  "  and 
every  one's  bands  were  loosed,"  the  jailer 
awakening  up,  "  called  for  a  light,  sprang  in, 
and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas,"  and 
brought  them  out,  and  said.  Sirs,  what  must  I 
do  to  be  saved  ?  Verses  29,  30.  I  ask,  Where 
are  they  now  1  You  say,  Just  where  they  were 
before  they  were  put  in  the  in?ier  prison.  That 
is  true.  Reader,  you  will  take  notice  that  the 
words  "  brought  them  out''''  occur  before  any  thing 
is  said  either  about  believing  or  baptism,  and 
before  there  was  any  preaching.  And  they 
said,  verse  31,  "Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house." 
*'  And  he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  iiight, 
and  washed  their  stripes ;  and  was  baptized, 
he  and  all  his,  straightway.''''  Verse  33.  "  And 
when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he 
set  meat  before  them,"  &c.  Verse  34.  And  the 
reader  will  find  in  verse  40,  that  "  they  went 
out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into  the  house  of 
Lydia." 

Mr.  B.'s  version  of  the  matter  makes  them 
come  out  of  the  house  at  midnight  to  preach  the 
gospel,  as  well  as  to  baptize  ;  for  the  words, 
brought  them  out,  are  before  his  "  speaking  to 
them  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  for  they  are  not 
said  to  have  been  brought  into  his  house  until 
after  the  baptizing ;  he  brought  them  in  to  give 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  141 

them  something  to  eat.  As  Mr.  B.  will  have 
them  brought  out  of  the  jail  before  the  service 
took  place,  and  as  we  have  seen  they  were  not 
in  the  jailer's  apartment  until  after  the  baptism  ; 
then  they  must  have  exhibited  the  odd  spectacle 
of  persons  going  out  of  a  building  to  preach  at 
midnight.  Unfortunately  for  Mr.  B.'s  theory, 
where  the  bringing  out  is  spoken  of,  nobody  is 
mentioned  but  Paul,  Silas,  and  the  jailer.  Yet, 
when  the  baptizing  is  mentioned,  "  he  and  all 
his"  are  "  baptized  straightioay .''^  The  true  state 
of  the  case  was  evidently  this  :  he  brought  them 
out  of  the  dungeon  into  the  outer  prison,  and 
asked,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?"  The 
family,  children,  and  domestics  are  assembled 
to  hear  the  sermon,  "  and  they  spake  unto  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in 
his  house.''  Here  the  Greek  w^ord  vmia  is  used, 
which  signifies  the  household,  the  whole  do- 
mestic establishment,  according  to  Schrevelius's 
Lexicon.  He  interprets  it  by  the  Latin  word 
domus,  w'hich  Cole's  Latin  Dictionary  interprets, 
a  house,  family,  household,  &lc. 

When  the  sermon  was  over,  and  the  jailer 
had  received  baptism,  with  all  his  family,  and 
had  washed  the  stripes  of  the  preachers,  "  he 
took  them  into  his  house,  and  set  meat  before 
them,"  &LC.  Nov/,  I  suppose,  in  this,  as  in  all 
large  cities,  the  jailer  occupied  a  part  of  the 
same  building  with  the  prisoners.  At  least,  he 
was  so  near,  that  in  the  midnight  hour,  when  he 
av/aked  up,  he  saw  "  the  prison  doors  open  ;" 
and  when  he  drew  out  his   sword  to  commit 


142  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

suicide,  Paul  cried  to  him, "  Do  thyself  no  harm." 
And  he  "  called  for  a  light,  and  sprang  in."  I 
ask  again,  Where  1  Into  the  inner  prison.  The 
phraseology  of  the  passage  would  leave  the 
impression  on  the  mind  of  an  unbiassed  reader 
that  the  jailer's  family  resided  in  a  part  of  the 
same  building  with  the  prisoners.  The  Roman 
law  made  prison  keepers  answerable  for  the 
safe  keeping  of  those  committed  to  them  :  hence 
the  precaution  this  man  took  to  put  the  prisoners 
in  the  dungeon,  and  make  "  their  feet  fast  in 
the  stocks."  And  hence  he  was  about  to  take 
his  own  life,  "  when  he  supposed  the  prisoners 
had  fled."  We  find,  from  Acts  xii,  18,19,  that 
the  keepers  of  the  prison  who  let  Peter  escape 
paid  for  it  with  their  lives.  And  they  were 
under  the  same  civil  jurisdiction  or  laws  with  the 
Philippian  jailer.  I  am  quite  willing  to  leave 
it  to  the  decision  of  the  intelligent  reader ;  in 
view  of  the  law — in  view^  of  the  fact  of  Peter's 
escape,  and  the  death  of  those  who  suffered 
him  to  escape — in  view  of  its  being  midnight, 
and  in  view  of  the  passage  saying  not  one  word 
about  their  going  away  from  the  prison  ; — whe- 
ther they  went  to  the  "  river  Strymon,"  or  to 
any  other  place,  for  the  purpose  of  immersion  ? 
So  much  for  Mr.  B.'s  "  brought  them  out." 
As  it  regards  a  bath  or  cistern  in  the  prison,  for 
the  comfort  and  cleanliness  of  the  prisoners, 
we  would  remark  that  such  things  are  not  very 
common,  even  now,  after  all  the  untiring  efforts 
of  such  men  as  John  Howard,  the  philanthropist, 
in  behalf  of  prisoners ;  and  they  made  no  part 


MODE  OF   BAPTISM.  143 

of  the  appendages  of  an  ancient  heathen  prison. 
I  think  it  will  appear  that  the  circumstances 
of  this  case  of  baptism  are  qnite  as  inflexible 
against  ijnmersion  as  Mr,  B.  is  disposeid  to  think 
the  Greek  word  iSaTrrci^o  is  for  it.  And  if  he 
had  possessed  candour  enough  to  quote  his 
Schrevelius  on  this  word,  as  he  did  on  the  word 
Traidia  when  arguing  against  the  "  infants,''^ 
Sermon,  p.  13,  we  should  have  had  a  different 
account  of  it.  It  suited  his  purpose  better  to 
quote  Dr.  Carson,  as  he  makes  the  word  mean 
immersion  only.  And  if,  in  the  case  above 
referred  to,  viz.,  Traidia^  he  had  possessed  the 
candour  to  quote  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke 
xviii,  15,  he  would  have  found  the  word 
"  ,i3fjfda,"  the  plural  of  jSpecpoc,  used,  which 
Schrevelius  would  inform  him  signifies  "m- 
fans,'"  an  "  i?fa7it"  a  "  babe."  He  would  thus 
have  been  saved  from  the  ridiculous  attitude 
of  a  Christian  teacher  attempting  to  explain 
away  the  words  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  used  by 
St.  Mark. 

The  case  of  the  eunuch,  found  in  iVcts  viii, 
26  to  39,  is  considered  by  our  opponents  as 
conclusive  evidence  in  favour  of  immersion. 
But  when  this  matter  is  sifted  a  little,  the  evi- 
dence will  not  appear  quite  as  conclusive  as 
those  have  thought  who  have  been  taught  all 
their  life  to  consider  nothing  to  be  baptism  that 
falls  short  of  dipping  or  immersion.  With  re- 
gard to  the  prepositions  used  here,  we  have 
shown  in  another  place  that  nothing  can  be 
gathered  from   their  use  in  this   controversy. 


144'  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Mr.  B.  seems  to  concede  that  the  eunuch's  im- 
mersion cannot  be  proved  from  ^^  going  into" 
and  "  coming  ouf^  of  the  water.  He  says,  Stric- 
tures, p.  17,  and  Sermon,  p.  36,  "  You  must  not 
suppose  that  my  argument  is  founded  on  going 
into,  and  coming  out  of,  the  water :  for  all  this, 
I  know,  might  be  done  without  any  immersion; 
here  is  the  argument :  Why  should  they  go  into 
the  water,  merely  to  sprinkle  ?"  and  asks,  "  Who 
ever  said  that  going  into  the  water  means  im- 
mersion  ?  Did  any  intelligent  man  ever  say  so  ?" 
I  reply  that  many  men  have  said  so ;  but  as  it 
regards  their  intelligence,  we  say  nothing.  In 
this  case,  as  in  most  others,  Mr,  B.  has  to  re- 
sort to  his  version  of  haptizo. 

When  we  refer  to  the  passage,  we  find  that 
the  eunuch  was  travelling  through  a  country 
which  was  "  a  desert,^^  and,  consequently,  the 
water  they  came  to  was  not  a  considerable 
stream  ;  as  is  probable,  we  think,  from  the  fact 
that  in  that  country  even  small  streams  made 
the  places  where  they  w^ere  found  populous,  as 
any  person  can  see  by  a  reference  to  the  map. 
And,  moreover,  as  the  streams  where  John  is 
said  to  have  administered  the  ordinance  are 
mentioned  hy  name,  it  is  probable  that  if  this 
had  been  a  watercourse,  or  stream,  worthy  a 
name,  its  name  also  would  have  been  given. 
The  language  of  the  eunuch  is,  "  See,  here  is 
water!" — an  exclamation,  as  though  he  had 
unexpectedly  discovered  it.  The  reader  may 
find,  by  a  reference  to  the  passage  which  he 
was  reading  at  the  time  Philip  fell  in  with  him, 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  145 

that  it  stands  in  intimate  connection  with,  and 
is  di  part  of  the  ^amc  prophecy,  where  Isaiah,  lii, 
15,  speaks  ot"  Christ  "  sprinkling  many  7iations.'" 
And  hideed  there  are  but  six  verses  between, 
that  passage  and  the  text  from  which  "  PhiUp 
preached  unto  him  Jesus."  He,  no  doubt,  gave 
him  to  understand  that  himself  and  others  were 
acting  under  a  commission  to  "  disciple  all  na- 
tions, baptizing  them,"  &c.,  and,  of  consequence, 
when  he  became  willing  to  receive  Christ,  he 
offered  himself  for  baptism.  I  can  see,  there- 
fore, how  he  could  readily  understand  the  rite 
of  initiation  to  be  administered  by  sprinkling. 
For,  whether  the  passage  above  quoted  was 
explained  by  Philip  as  alluding  to  baptism  lite^ 
rally,  or  to  the  thing  signified  by  it,  in  either 
case  the  mode  is  by  "  ^sprinklings  many  na- 
tions." So  I  conclude  that  he  did  not  give  him 
baptism  by  immersion,  as  a  symbol  of  that  spi- 
ritual washing  that  was  to  be  effected  by 
sprinkling.  But  perhaps  an  immersionist  would 
like  to  suggest  that  the  prophet  refers  to  what 
Christ  would  do  himself;  and  that,  therefore, 
the  prophecy  cannot  refer  to  the  apostle's 
making  "  disciples  of  the  nations  by  sprinkling." 
I  reply,  that  it  is  very  common  in  Scripture 
language  for  God  to  be  represented  as  doing 
Avhat  he  causes  to  be  done.  The  reader  can 
find  a  striking  case  in  point,  John  iii,  22  :  "  After 
these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into 
the  land  of  Judea  ;  and  there  he  tarried  with  them 
and  baptized.'''  Compare  this  with  the  first  and 
second  verses  of  the  next  chapter :  "  AVhen, 
10 


146  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

therefore,  the  Lord  knew  how  the  Pharisees 
had  '  heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more 
disciples  than  John.'  Though  Jesus  himself 
baptized  not,  hut  his  disciples.'"  Here  is  evi- 
dently as  plain  a  declaration  that  "  Christ  bap- 
tized,'^ as  the  prophet  has,  "  he  shall  sprinkle 
many  nations,"  and  yet  we  are  informed  subse- 
quently that  "  Jesus  baptized  not,  but  his  dis- 
ciples." 

How  natural,  then,,  was  it  for  the  eunuch  to 
ask  for  baptism,  if  Philip  gave  him  an  explana- 
tion of  the  prophecy,  as  referring  to  the  ordi- 
nance of  Christian  baptism  given  by  "  sprinkling 
the  nations."  Whatever  others  may  think,  I 
am  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  this  is  the 
genuine  interpretation  of  the  passage.  And 
that  the  whole  of  the  fifty-second  and  fifty-third 
chapters  of  Isaiah  refer  to  what  should  take 
place  under  the  gospel ;  "  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  the  glory  that  should  follow,"  in 
the  setting  up  and  establishment  of  the  gospel 
kingdom  ;  when  the  Messiah  should  "  see  his 
seed,"  "  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  should 
prosper  in  his  hands,"  when  "  his  doctrine" 
shall  "  come  down"  on  the  nations  "  as  rain," 
under  the  preaching  of  his  apostles  and  their 
successors,  and  when  by  their  hands  he  should 
*'  sprinkle  many  nations.^' 

I  conclude,  from  the  above,  that  Philip  and 
the  eunuch  came  to  a  spring  or  run  of  water ; 
that  they  both  alighted,  and  going  to  the  water, 
he  received  the  ordinance,  and  afterward  went 
on  his  way  rejoicing.     But  Mr.  B.  asks,  "  Why 


MODE  OF   BAPTISM.  147 

should  they  go  into  the  water  in  order  to 
sprinkle .'"'  I  reply,  For  aiiglit  thai  appears  to 
the  contrar\',  they  were  no  more  in  the  water 
than  the  sons  of  the  prophets  were  '•  when  they 
came  «f*  to  Jordan  to  cut  down  wood,"  2  Kings 
vi,  4  ;  the  san;e  preposition  is  used  in  the  case 
under  consideration.  I  presume  the  sons  of  the 
prophets  hardly  stood  in  the  river  to  fell  trees. 

The  missionary,  Mr.  Wolf,  found  a  sect  of 
Christians  in  Mesopotamia  who  called  them- 
selves "  the  followers  of  John  the  Baptist,"  who 
baptized  children  at  thirty  days  old,  and  who 
performed  the  rite  by  sprinkling  water  upon  the 
child  at  the  edge  of  a  river.  See  his  Journal, 
vol.  ii,  p.  311,  as  quoted  by  Watson.  Mr.  Wolf 
asks,  "  Why  do  they  baptize  in  rivers  ?"  An- 
swer :  "  Because  St.  John  the  Baptist  baptized 
ill  the  river  Jordan."  "  Thus  we  have  in  modern 
times,  river  baptism  without  immersion^ 

We  next  notice  a  favourite  argument  of  ouv 
Baptist  friends,  drawn  from  the  supposed  immer- 
sion of  Christ.  "  If  nobody  else  ever  w^as  bap- 
tized by  immersion,"  say  they,  "  surely  tJie 
Master  was;  and  we  are  commanded  to  take 
lip  our  cross  and  follovj  hi?n.^^  We  are  by  no 
means  convinced  that  Christ  2cas  immersed. 
And  if  it  could  be  shown  that  he  was,  I  have 
not  been  able  to  find  in  the  New  Testament 
the  command  to  receive  the  same  baptism  that 
he  received.  I  hold  that  the  baptism  of  Jesus 
Christ   was  veri/  peculiar;    such    as    no    other 

*  Etc;  ror  ~opdav?]v.    See  vcr-^ion  of  ihe  J,XX. — Ed. 


148  OBLIGATfONj  SUBJECTS,  AND 

person  ever  received.  1st.  He  being  without 
sin,  could  neither  repent  nor  promise  amend- 
ment of  life.  2d.  Being  the  wisdom  of  God, 
he    could   be   tausfht  nothinsf.     3d.   Beinsf  the 

Go  & 

Christ,  he  could  not  profess  that  he  v/ould  be- 
lieve in  him  that  should  come  after  him,  that  is, 
in  Imnsclf.  He  therefore  was  baptized,  1st.  To 
honour  the  office  of  his  herald  ;  2d.  That  he 
might  fulfil  the  righteousness  of  John's  dispen- 
sation ;  and  3d.  Tha.t  by  this  rite  he  might  be 
inducted  into  his  public  office,  as  the  "  prophet 
like  to  xMoses  ;"  as  the  High  Priest  over  the 
house  of  God.  The  language  of  Robert  Hall 
is,  "  He  was  inaugurated  into  his  office  at  his 
baptism,  till  which  period  he  remained  in  the 
obscurity  of  private  life,"  &c.  See  Works, 
vol.  i,  p.  372. 

At  thirty  years  of  age  the  priests  were 
"  washed  with  water,"  and  "  anointed  with  oil," 
Exod.  xxix,  4,  7,  and  Lev.  viii,  6,  10-12.  So 
we  find  that  Christ,  at  the  age  of  thirty,  was 
washed  of  John  at  Jordan,  and  "  anointed  with 
the  Holy  Ghost ;"  and  John  said,  "  I  knew  him 
not,  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  said,  Upon 
whomsoever  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descend 
and  light  vpon  him,  he  it  is  that  baptizeth  with 
tlie  Holy  Ghost." 

I  suppose  Mr.  B.  vrill  hardly  say  that  while 
Jesus  stood  upon  the  bank  of  Jordan  the  Spirit 
immersed  him;  (when 'the  text  says,  "It  de- 
scended upon  him  like  a  dove,"  John  i,  32,  33  ;) 
as  there  is  nothing  said  here  about  a  loind,  or 
sound,  filling  all  out  of  doors.     Those  who  talk 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  141) 

SO  much  of  ''  following  Christ  down  to  Jordan," 
and  are  perpetually  troubling  the  weak,  but 
sincere  believer  in  Jesus,  about  being  immersed 
in  imitation  of  Christ's  example,  ought  to  recol- 
lect that  he  was  circumcised  as  well  as  bap- 
tized, and  that  after  his  baptism  he  fasted  forty 
days  and  nights,  and  had  a  severe  rencontre 
with  the  great  adversary  of  God  and  man,  be- 
fore he  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  the  func- 
tions of  his  high  office.  They  should  recollect 
also  that  he  regularly  kept  the  Jewish  passover, 
and  his  disciples  also  kept  it  with  him  ;  he  also 
washed  their  feet,  and  said  to  them,  "  Do  to  one 
another  as  I  have  done  to  you."  Those  who 
would  receive  the  baptism  which  Christ  re- 
ceived from  John,  (even  if  this  were  possible,) 
would  need  rebaptizing,  in  order  to  be  initiated 
into  the  Christian  church  ;  for  we  have  the 
authority  of  St.  Paul,  Acts  xix,  and  of  that  dis- 
tinguished Baptist  preacher,  Robert  Hall,  of 
England,  for  saying  that  John's  was  not  the 
Christian  haptism.  His  words  are,  as  quoted 
in  the  first  part  of  this  discussion,  '■^  No  rite 
celchrated  at  that  time  (i.  e.,  during  John's  mi- 
nistry) is  entitled  to  a  place  among  Christian 
sacramexts,  since  they  did  not  commence  with 
the  Christian  dispensation." — Hall's  Works, 
vol.  i,  p.  372.  Now  if  our  Baptist  friends  will 
insist  that  they  must  go  to  the  water,  and  do  as 
Jesus  did,  (i.  e.,  receive  John's  baptism,)  we 
cannot  go  with  them,  for  we  cannot  consent  to 
abandon  our  right  to  an  interest  in  the  Christian 
dispensation.     Hear  the  words  of  our  Master, 


IjO  OBLIGAIIOX,    SUBJECTS,  A\D 

Luke  vii,  28:  "Among  those  that  are  bora  of 
women,  there  is  not  a  greater  prophet  than  John 
the  Baptist ;  but  he  that  is  least  in  the.  kiiigdom 
of  God  IS  greater  than  heP  And  Mr.  Hall  says, 
that  "  the  phrase  kingdom  of  God  is  constanthf 
used  to  denote  that  state  of  things  under  the 
administration  of  the  Messiah."  See  as  above. 

He,  therefore,  who  would  forsake  the  king- 
dom OF  God,  or  Christian  church,  and  go 
back  to  John  at  Jordan,  under  the  fanciful  idea 
of  following  Christ,  might,  with  equal  propriety j 
have  his  male  children  circumcised  at  eight 
days  old,  and  constantly  keep  the  Jewish  pass- 
over  ;  for  he  could  plead  the  example  of  Christ 
in  honouring  these  institutions  also. 

But  I  shall  be  told  that  the  Scriptures  say, 
*'  And  straightway  coming  up  out  of  the  water, 
he  saw  the  heavens  opened,"  Mark  i,  10.  It  is 
said  in  Matt,  iii,  16,  "  And  Jesus,  when  he  was 
baptized,  locnt  up  straightway  out  of  the  water." 
In  both  these  places  the  Greek  word  a~o  is 
used,  the  tirst  sense  of  wdiich,  according  to 
Parkhurst's  Lexicon,  is  "  from  ;"  so  we  see 
that  nothing  can  be  fairly  made  out  from  his 
case  to  show  that  even  the  manner  in  which  he 
received  the  ordinance  was  by  plunging.  His 
coming  up,  and  going  up,  show  nothing  for  im- 
mersion ;  because  they  imply  action,  whereas  in 
immersion  the  subject  is  always  passive. 

We  must  now  call  the  attention  o(  the  candid 
reader  to  the  favourite  argument  of  our  differing 
brethren,  drawn  from  a  fanciful  interpretation 
of  Rom.  vi,  4,  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with 


f 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  151 

him  by  baptism  into  death,"  &c.,  and  Col.  ii, 
12.  Mr.  B.,  Sermon,  p.  10,  seems  to  consider 
this  allusion  of  the  apostle  as  a  most  conclusive 
argument  for  the  mode  of  baptism  by  immersion. 
Ho  says,  *'  I  pause  to  admire  the  wisdom  of  the 
Most  High,  in  putting  it  into  the  mind  of  his 
inspired  servant  to  describe  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  by  so  familiar  an  allusion.  Let  the 
learned,  my  brethren,  dispute  about  the  mean- 
ing of  Greek  verbs  and  prepositions,  you  all 
understand  what  a  hurial  is,  and  if  Paul  called 
baptism  a  hurial,  you  will  easily  decide  whether" 
he  meant,  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immersion.^'* 
Query — Did  any  of  Mr.  B.'s  hearers  or  readers 
ever  witness  a  hurial  where  the  hody  was  dipped 
or  plunged  in  the  earth?  I  dare  say  they  have 
tuitncssed  many  w^here  the  body  had  the  earth 
SPRINKLED  OR  POURED  UPON  IT.  It  is  casy  for 
those  who  do  not  think  much  to  be  led  away 
with  the  sound  of  a  word ;  but  I  hope  better 
things  of  you,  intelligent  reader. 

There  are  several  serious  difficulties  which 
lie  against  this  fanciful  argument  for  imTnersion  : 
1st.  Although  Mr.  B.  says  St.  Paul  "  describes  it 
by  an  allusion'''  (rather  a  strange  method  of  de- 
scription, by  the  way,  and  that,  too,  in  a  matter 
where  he  says,  "  We  may  expect  to  find  the 
word  of  God  very  explicit  upon  the  subject," 
Sermon,  p.  6,)  yet  in  all  the  four  gospels,  in 
all  that  John  the  Baptist  and  Jesus  Christ  ever 
said  with  regard  to  baptism,  there  is  not  one 
solitary  intimation  that  the  ordinance  had  any 
reference  to  a  hurial :  either  to  the  burial  and 


152"  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

resurrection  of  Christ,  or  any  other.  Again  :  in 
all  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  in  all  that  they 
said,  from  time  to  time,  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, there  is  no  such  allusion  ;  nor  is  there  in 
the  Epistles,  except  in  the  two  passages  above 
referred  to.  2d.  That  St.  Paul  has  reference 
to  the  mode  of  literal  baptism  in  these  passages 
is  exceedingly  doubtful ;  because  no  such  idea 
was  given  him  at  his  own  baptism  by  Ananias^ 
as  that  he  was  to  "  arise  and  be  baptized,  to 
represent  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ" 
On  the  contrary,  he  said,  "Arise  and  be  bap- 
tized, and  WASH  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  He  was  taught,  then,  to 
consider  baptism  as  representing  the  wash- 
ing away  of  sins,  and  not  to  consider  it  as  re- 
presenting a  grave,  the  place  of  loathsomeness 
and  corruption. 

The  fine  idea  that  we  hear  so  often  advanced 
about  the  "  liquid  grave,^"*  the  "  expressive  rite," 
the  "  watery  tofnb,"  &c.,  is  a  modern  invention, 
and  has  no  authority  from  the  word  of  God. 
Who  can  see  any  resemblance  between  a  man 
wading  into  a  creek  or  river  up  to  his  waist  or 
armpits,  and  another  dipping  the  rest  of  his 
body  under  water,  and  the  laying  away  of  the 
body  of  Jesus  in  a  sepulchre,  above  ground, 
hewn  out  of  a  solid  rock,  there  to  remain  three 
days  ?  Jonah's  being  three  days  and  nights  in 
the  belly  of  the  fish,  ims  the  sign  of  the  burial 
and  resurrection  of  Christ ;  hence  Jesus  told  the 
Jews,  "  There  shall  710  other  sign  be  given  you 
but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah ;"  and  yet  our 


MODE   OF   BAPTISM.  153 

Baptist  friends  will  have  it  that  baptism  was, 
and  is,  the  sign  or  representation  of  Christ's 
burial  and  resurrection. 

But,  reader,  their  practice  is  at  izjctr  with  their 
theory;  for  if,  as  they  say,  baptism  does  really 
represent  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
then  they  should  not  require  persons  to  be 
baptized  before  they  admit  them  to  the  Lord's 
supper ;  because  in  this  they  require  them  to 
show  forth  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ 
before  they  allow  them  to  obey  the  command 
of  Jesus,  in  showing  forth  his  passion  and  death 
in  the  sacred  supper.  They  thus  reverse  the 
order  of  those  important  facts,  and  show  the 
hordes  resurrection  before  his  death.  I  have  to 
urge  against  this  interpretation,  3d,  That  it 
proves  too  much  ;  for  if,  "  being  buried,"  in  the 
passage,  alludes  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  then 
so  does  "  being  planted,  or  grafted,  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death,"  allude  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism ;  for  the  subject  is  the  same  in  verses  5 
and  6  as  in  verse  4.  And  "  being  crucified" 
also  must  refer  to  the  mode.  In  the  passage 
in  Colossians,  the  "  rising  with  him"  spoken  of 
is  said  to  be  "  through  the  faith  of  the  operation 
of  God."  We  can  see  no  good  sense  in  which 
it  can  be  said,  a  man  rises  in  baptism  "  through 
faith:' 

If  any  thing  in  these  passages  can  be  shown 
to  allude  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  then  partial 
irnrnersion,  as  "  planting,"  or  using  the  sign  of 
the  cross,  has  as  much  evidence  in  their  favour 
as  immersion.    In  conclusion,  we  are  of  opinion 


154  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

that  these  passages  refer  to  the  spiritual  baptism 
spoken  of  in  the  word  of  God,  1  Cor.  xii,  13, 
"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles  ;"  and 
we  have  seen  that  the  "  one  Spirit"  is  adminis- 
tered, by  pouring,  falling  tipo?i,  &c.  The  pas- 
sage may  be  considered  as  referring  to  the 
mighty  energies  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  whereby 
the  believer  is  regenerated,  "  crucified  with 
Christ,"  "  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death;" 
and  if  baptism  literally  is  referred  to  at  ail,  it  is 
only  as  the  instrumental  cause,  the  initiating 
rite,  by  which  we  enter  the  church,  where  by 
professio?i  we  are,  and  in  fact  ought  to  be, 
"  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God 
through  Jesus  Christ."  If  our  Baptist  friends- 
will  insist  still  that  the  mode  of  baptism  by  im- 
mersion is  referred  to,  and  that  the  ordinance 
is  intended  to  represent  the  burial  and  7'esur- 
rcction  of  Christ,  I  have  two  questions  to  ask : 
1st.  If  the  rite  was  intended  to  represent  these 
two  things,  how  did  it  come  to  pass  that  the 
disciples  were  so  ignorant  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  resurrection  up  to  the  eve  of  his  cruci- 
fixion, that  "  they  wondered  what  the  rising  from 
the  dead  should  mean  V  2d.  If  this  ordinance 
has  been  instituted  to  represent  the  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  then  we  ask.  Where  is 
the  Christian  rite  that  is  the  emblem  of  moral 
purity  ?  Christianity  has  but  two  sacraments — 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper ;  the  first,  em- 
blematical of  the  "  Spirit's"  influences,  and  the 
second  commemorative  of  the  breaking  of  the 


MODK   OF   BAPTISM.  155 

body,  and  the  shedding  of  the  blood,  of  the  Sou 
of  God.  Blood  and  water  came  forth  from 
the  pierced  side  of  Jesus,  emblematical  of  atone- 
ment and  of  purity.  ^^  By  water  we  are  purified, 
and  pardoned  by  his  blood. ''^  "  There  are  three 
that  bear  witness  in  earth  ;  the  Spirit,  the  water, 
and  the  blood ;  and  these  three  agree  in  one," 
1  John  V,  8.  I  consider  this  text  as  referring 
to  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  water  of  baptism,  and 
the  blood  of  Jesus,  all  agreeing  in  one  mode  of 
administration^;  and  that  is  sprinkling  or  pouring. 
Mr.  B.  says,  Sermon,  p.  27,  "  Baptism  does 
not  necessarily  include  the  idea  of  water  at  all. 
We  might  baptize  with  meal,  with  oil,  with 
honey,  with  sand  ;  the  question  is,  What  action 
constitutes  baptism  ?"  Query — Could  a  man  be 
immersed  in  sand  ?  Sand  or  meal  might  be 
poured  or  sprinkled  on  the  subject,  but  the 
"  action^''  as  he  calls  it,  could  never  be  dipping 
or  plunging.  The  word  "  baptizo,"  as  it  occurs 
in  Mark  vii,  4,  5,  with  regard  to  the  washing 
of  hands,  cups,  tables,  &c.,  cannot  be  inter- 
preted as  signifying  the  action  of  dipping  only : 
for  though  their  hands  and  cups  might  have 
been  dipped,  yet  surely  they  did  not  wash  or 
baptize  their  "  brazen  vessels,''^  and  "  tables,"  or 
"  couches,"  by  immersion. 

i  We  now  notice  the  argument  from  antiquity. 
Mr.  B.  thinks  that  the  practice  of  the  "  ancient 
church"  shows  the  "  pattern"  of  baptism,  and  he 
quotes  Mosheim  and  Robinson,  Sermon,  p.  41, 
to  prove  that  the  pattern  was  by  immersion. 
That  immersion   was  practised  in  the  second 


156  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

century,  and  for  some  time  subsequent,  we 
firmly  believe.  The  Baptist  argument  on  this" 
point  runs  thus  :  "  The  Baptists  practise  im- 
mersion, and  so  did  the  ancient  church ;  and, 
therefore,  so  did  John  the  Baptist  and  the 
apostles."  This  to  them  is  demonstration.  But 
stop,  reader,  we  must  look  a  little  at  this  argu- 
ment. The  primitive  church,  in  this  mode  of 
arguing,  is  made  the  connecting  link  between 
the  New  Testament  times  and  our  own.  Let  us 
now  try  another  argument.  In  the  primitive 
church,  the  people  were  immersed  naked,  both 
men  and  women ;  therefore  John  and  the  apos- 
tles immersed  people  naked  ;  therefore  the  Bap- 
tists ought  to  immerse  people  naked.  Again  : 
The  primitive  church  gave  milk  and  honey  to 
the  baptized,  and  used  unction  ;  so  did  John  the 
Baptist  and  the  apostles,  so  ought  the  Baptists. 
Again :  The  primitive  church  baptized  infants, 
so  did  John  and  the  apostles,  so  ought  the  Bap- 
tists. If  our  friends  should  object  to  my  insist- 
ing on  the  argument  being  thus  pushed  to  its 
consequences,  I  must  contend,  if  the  pattern  is 
to  be  found  in  the  second  century,  they  must 
?iot  alter  that  pattern :  for  Mr.  B.  says,  Sermon, 
p.  6,  "  Unless  the  plan  laid  down  jn  the  pattern 
is  iinplicitly  pursued,  the  thing  required  is  not 
performed  at  all.''''  I  will  prove  by  Mr.  B.'s 
witness,  (and  he  will  tell  the  truth  in  this  mat- 
ter, no  doubt,  as  he  is  a  Baptist,)  that  the  an- 
cients gave  the  ordinance,  the  subjects  being 
in  a  state  of  nudity.  "  The  primitive  Christians 
baptized  naked.    There  is  no  ancient  historical 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  157 

fact  better  authenticated  than  this." — Robinson's 
History  of  Baptism,  p.  85.  Wall  says,  "  The 
ancient  Christians,  when  they  v/ere  baptized  by 
immersion,  were  all  baptized  naked  ;  whether 
they  were  men,  women,  or  children.  They 
thought  it  better  represented  the  putting  off  the 
old  man,  and  also  the  nakedness  of  Christ  on 
the  cross.  Moreover,  as  baptism  is  a  washing, 
they  judged  that  it  should  be  the  v/ashing  of 
the  body,  not  of  tlie  clothes^ — Wall,  chap,  xv, 
part  2.  So  they  understood  the  pattern.  If  it 
were  necessary,  vve  could  produce  an  abun- 
dance of  testimony  to  confirm  this  point.  And 
I  leave  it  to  the  intelligent  reader  to  judge, 
whether  they  received  this  pattern  '^  in  the 
mount,'^  or  whether  it  was  the  offspring  of  su- 
perstition. Religion,  like  the  Saviour,  is  often, 
placed  between  two  thieves — Superstition  on 
the  right  hand,  and  Atheism  on  the  left.  The 
one  makes  a  puppet  of  her,  sets  her  out  in 
gaudy  attire,  and  mars  her  native  beauty ;  the 
other  strips  her  naked  of  her  vestments,  and 
exposes  her  to  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  the 
world.  But  let  these  men  esteem  her  as  they 
list,  she  is  nevertheless  the  fair  daughter  of  the 
Almig'hty,  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  beauty  of 
the  whole  earth.  And  it  is  known  to  all  that 
read  and  think,  that  human  nature  has  always 
been  prone  to  add  to  the  simple  ceremonies 
of  Christianity.  Imposing  ordinances  are  no 
proof  of  the  genuineness  of  a  religion,  under  the 
gospel,  where  "the  true  worshippers  worship 
the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth." 


158  OBLIGATION.  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

The  Baptists  very  often  are  found  vaunting 
about  the  uniformity  of  their  views  and  prac- 
tice ;  they  will  tell  you  that  they  have  always 
rejected  "  infant  baptism,"  and  always  practised 
immersion.  ■  If  the  reader  will  attend,  I  will  give 
him  a  fact  or  two  from  a  Baptist  writer  that  will 
prove  a  small  drawback  upon  these  high  preten- 
sions. In  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists, 
vol.  i,  pp.  150-152,  it  is  said,  "The  American 
Mennonites  have  adopted  pouring,  instead  of  im- 
inersion,  and  it  is  probable  that  many,  and  I 
know  not  but  most,  of  the  European  Mennonites 
have  done  the  same."  The  reader  will  bear  in 
mind  that  these  Baptists  have  been  a  numerous 
sect,  in  the  Netherlands,  Upper  Saxony,  Prus- 
sia, Russia,  Poland,  France,  &c.,  <fec.,  and  their 
leader,  or  founder,  Menno,  who  died  in  1561, 
asserted  that  "  dipping  was  the  only  haptis?n 
acceptable  to  God."  "  The  Dutch  Baptists," 
says  Benedict,  "  held  to  dipping  believers  at 
first ;  they  still  retain  the  subjects  of  the  ordi- 
nance, but,  by  a  surprising  change,  some,  I 
know  not  how  many,  have  departed  from  the 
apostolic  mode."  It  is  surely  very  surprising 
that  so  many  Baptists  should  depart  from  the 
apostolic  pattern,  \{  cold  bathing  is  as  conveniejit^ 
pleasant,  and  healthy  as  Mr.  Broaddus  seems  to 
think  it.  Sermon,  p.  40,  and  Strictures,  p.  22, 
he  says,  "  It  often  proves  beneficial  to  health," 
&c.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  God  has  said, 
All  men  who  are  to  be  baptized  must  be  im- 
mersed, then  there  should  be  no  demurring; 
and  although  Mr.  B.  has  again  and  again  begged 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM,  159 

the  question,  without  proving  the  position,  we 
are  still  of  the  opinion  that  those  Baptists  who 
have  given  up  immersion,  and  adopted  pouring, 
have  acted  wisely. 

We  must  now  say  a  word  on  the  question  of 
the  validity  of  the  ordinance,  as  administered  by 
those  who  have  never  been  immersed.  Nothing 
is  more  common  than  for  our  differing  brethren 
to  object,  when  we  administer  the  rite  by  iminer- 
sion.  We  do  not  consider  it  "  the  most  excellent 
way,''  but  if  any  prefer  that  mode,  and  we  cannot 
convince  them  that  pouring  is  the  better  mode, 
we  immerse  them  ;  and  consider  that  we  have 
given  as  valid  haptism  as  Elder  B.  could  give. 
I  have  sometimes  asked  our  Baptist  friends,  if 
the  validity  of  the  ordinance  rests  upon  the 
qualifications  of  the  administrator,  or  other- 
wise ;  but  I  have  not  found  them  at  all  agreed 
in  opinion  on  that  point.  If  the  reader  will 
consult  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  vol.  i, 
p.  475,  he  will  discover  that  the  first  Baptist 
church  in  this  country  was  founded  or  planted 
by  Roger  Williams,  in  the  year  1639,  in  Provi- 
dence, Rhode  Island.  Mr.  Benedict  gives  the 
following  account  of  this  matter :  "  Being  settled 
in  this  place,  which,  from  the  kindness  of  God 
to  them,  they  called  Providence,  Mr.  Williams, 
and  those  with  him,  considered  the  importance 
of  gospel  union,  and  were  desirous  of  forming 
themselves  into  a  church,  but  met  with  a  con- 
siderable obstruction ;  they  were  convinced  of 
the  nature  and  design  of  believers'  baptism  by 
immersion,  but,  from  a  variety  of  circumstances, 


160  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AXD 

had  hitherto  been  prevented  from  submission. 
To  obtain  a  suitable  administrator  was  a  matter 
of  consequence  :  at  length,  the  candidates  for 
communion  nominated  and  appointed  Mr.  Eze- 
kiel  Holliman,  a  man  of  gifts  and  piety,  to  bap- 
tize Mr.  Williams  ;  and  who,  in  return,  baptized 
Mr.  Holliman  and  the  other  ten."  Here  is  the 
origin  of  the  Baptists  in  these  United  States ; 
and  here  was  a  church,  that  was  no  church  at 
all,  according  to  the  opinion  of  many  of  the 
Baptists.  Mr.  HoUiman  did  not  pretend  to  be 
either  a  minister  or  a  baptized  believer,  but  he 
was  appointed  to  give  believers'*  baptism  to  Mr. 
Williams,  and  then  Mr.  W.  gave  believers'  bap- 
tism to  him  and  the  other  ten. 

The  intelligent  reader  may  see  with  what 
consistency  the  Baptists  attempt  to  invalidate 
the  ordinance  as  administered  by  us,  even 
when  immersion  is  the  7node.  Although  they 
may  attempt  to  disguise  it,  yet  there  are  several 
circumstances  which  go  to  show  that  they  con- 
sider the  ordinance  given  by  any  but  a  Baptist 
preacher  as  being  no  baptism  at  all. 

1st.  They  will  not  admit  any  such  to  the 
Lord's  table  among  them. 

2d.  If  any  such  offer  to  join  their  church, 
they  do  not  receive  them  unless  they  rebaptize 
them ;  and 

3d.  If  a  Methodist  minister  gives  the  ordi- 
nance by  immersion,  they  generally  hear  of  the 
murmurings  of  the  Baptists  :  "  You  have  no 
right  to  give  it,"  say  they ;  "3/ow  don'^t  believe  in 
it,""  (fee.     But  here  we  have  a  Baptist  church 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  161 

without  believers'  baptism ;  and  who  knows 
how  many  of  the  present  race  of  Baptist  preach- 
ers descended  from  that^r^^  church? 

Query — Are  their  ministrations  more  vaUd 
than  Mr.  Holliman's,  if  they  happen  to  be  in 
this  branch  of  the  succession.,  as  he  could  give 
Mr.  Williams  nothing  that  he  did  not  himself 
possess,  and  as  he  (Mr.  W.)  had  received  no 
valid  baptism,  he  could  give  none  to  the  rest  ? 

This  they  supposed  was  the  pattern,  and  they 
practised  the  "  laying  on  of  hands'^  in  that  church 
after  baptism,  as  did  many  others  in  the  early 
part  of  their  history  in  this  country.  Now  it 
was  hardly  modest  in  Mr.  Benedict,  in  view  of 
this  case,  in  his  own  church  to  attempt  to  ridicule 
the  practice  of  the  Catholics  in  appointing  lay- 
men to  administer  baptism  to  children,  or  sick 
people,  in  cases  of  emergency. 

I  have  not  given  this  case  with  any  design 
to  invalidate  the  ordinance  as  practised  by  the 
Baptists  ;  but  to  let  them  and  the  public  know, 
that  their  boasting  about  the  superiority  of  the 
ordinance  as  administered  by  them,  and  the 
idea  they  put  forth  about  the  identity  of  their 
doings,  in  a  literal  conformity  to  all  the  circum- 
stances of  a  "positive  institute,"  are  frivo- 
lous and  vain. 

While  they  attempt  to  unchurch  their  neigh- 
bours, whose  claim  to  piety  is  as  good  as  their 
own,  by  representing  them  as  the  "  disobedient 
children"  of  God,  and  saying  in  their  confes- 
sion of  faith,  chap,  xxvii,  p.  29,  Alexandria  edi- 
tion, 1833,  "  A  visible,  or  gospel  church,  consists 
11 


162  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

of  those  who  have  believed,  been  baptized  by 
IMMERSION,  given  themselves  to  the  Lord,  and 
to  each  other,  as  required  in  the  divine  word." 
They  ought  not  to  complain  if  their  errors  and 
bigotry,  at  least,  are  "  handled  without  gloves." 

We  have  shown,  we  think,  in  the  course  of 
this  argument  on  the  mode  of  baptism, — 

1st.  That  "no  law  of  haptiism'^  can  be  found 
in  the  Greek  word  paizTi^o,  and  that  the  opinion 
of  Mr.  B.  and  Dr.  Carson,  about  its  meaning 
immersion  only,  is  contradicted  by  critics  and 
lexicographers  ;  by  Professor  Stuart,  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, and  Dr.  Clarke  ;  and,  what  is  of  more 
weight  still,  by  John  the  Baptist,  by  Jesus 
Christ,  by  St.  Peter,  and  by  St.  Paul,  one  of 
the  best  scholars  of  his  time.  Does  not  the 
candid  reader  think  that  St.  Paul  understood 
Greek  as  well  as  the  corrupt  Greek  Church  ? 
We  have  shown, 

2d.  That  Mr.  B.  has  miserably  abused  his 
Pedobaptist  witnesses;  and  that  he  has  more 
than  insinuated  that  King  James,  the  bishops, 
and  translators,  formed  a  conspiracy  against  the 
truth,  in  giving  the  world  the  common  version 
of  the  Scriptures,  without  translating  the  Greek 
word  so  as  to  mean  immersion  only.  We  have 
vindicated  the  translators,  and  shown  that  they 
followed  the  common  custom  pursued  by  Lu- 
ther, the  Latin  and  French  translators,  and  also 
by  Mr.  George  Campbell.  And  in  this  they 
followed  the  Spirit  of  God,  shown  in  the  case 
of  the  Lord's  supper,  where  the  Hebrew  word 
''''pesacK^  is  retained  by  the  inspired  writers  of 


iMODE  OF   BAPTISM.  163 

the  New  Testament  in  the  Greek  word  pascha. 
We  have  shown, 

3(3.  That  if  the  meaning  of  the  word  used  in 
a  positive  institute  is  to  furnish  the  law  and  fix 
all  the  circumstances  of  its  observances,  then, 
in  the  observance  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  we  ought  to  eat  a  full  meal,  for  the  word 
used  in  1  Cor.  xi,  20,  to  designate  that  ordi- 
nance, is  6elttvov,  supper,  \vhich,  among  the 
Greeks,  the  learned  tell  us,  was  the  word  used, 
not  only  for  a  full  meal,  but  for  the  principal 
meal.  Yet  our  Baptist  brethren  think  they  have 
taken  the  sacrament  of  the  supper,  really 
and  fully,  when  they  have  taken  a  little  piece 
of  bread,  and  liave  sipped  of  wine.  Why  cannot 
baptism  be  performed  with  a  little  avater? 
In  this  part  of  the  argument  I  have  shown  also 
the  futility  of  Mr.  B.'s  fanciful  notion  about 
positive  institutes. 

4th.  That  the  divers  baptisms  among  the 
Jews,  appointed  of  God,  were  performed  by 
''  sprinkling  the  unclean^''  and  that  applying  wa- 
ter for  purification,  where  an  administrator  and 
a  subject  were  found,  was  never  by  immersion. 

5th.  That  it  is  highly  improbable  that  John 
could  have  baptized,  by  immersion,  the  hundreds 
of  thousands  that  came  to  his  baptism,  and  that 
the  Jordan  and  the  "  much  tmter''^  were  wanted 
for  purposes  other  than  dipping. 

6th.  That  the  baptism  w^hich  took  place  in 
private  houses,  and  in  the  prison,  and  in  the 
temple,  cannot  be  made,  by  any  fair  dealing,  to 
favour  immersion.     And  I  am  strengthened  in 


164  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

this  view  by  what  Mr.  Benedict  says  about  the 
Mennonites  learning  to  baptize  hy  pourings 
"  where  they  made  proselytes  in  prison." 
Query — Where  were  the  ^' tanks,"  ^' baths"  and 
"  HOGSHEADsJ"  for  immcrsion,  which  abounded 
so  much  in  the  days  of  the  apostles  ?  Had 
modern  prisons  none  of  them  ? 

7th.  We  have  shown  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  was  by  "  pouring,"  "  falling  upon," 
&c.,  and  that  Mr.  B.,  in  order  to  evade  this 
argument,  has  run  into  the  egregious  mistake 
of  making  "  the  rushing  wind,"  and  "  sound," 
or  echo,  that  filled  the  house,  to  be  the  Spirit 
of  God,  "  overwhelming  the  disciples."  And 
we  have  shown  also,  that  when  it  came  down 
upon  Cornelius  and  his  company,  it  was  shed 
forth,  without  an  accompanying  wind  or  sound. 
And  that  on  Christ  it  came  descending  "  like  a 
dove." 

8th.  We  have  shown  also  that,  in  every  case 
of  baptism  recorded  in  the  Netu  Testament,  the 
ordinance  was  given  without  delay,  whether  it 
were  night  or  day ;  and  that  there  is  a  total 
absence  of  evidence  that  any  person  ever  moved 
or  walked  so  much  as  one  hundred  yards 

FROM  the  place  OF  PREACHING  IN  ORDER  TO 
RECEIVE  THE  ORDINANCE  OF  BAPTISM.      Let  the 

reader  compare  this  with  what  takes  place  in 
modern  times.  Who  ever,  in  our  day,  hears  of 
a  baptism  by  immersion,  without  hearing  also 
that  Elder  A.  B.  or  G.  went  from  such  a  meeting 
house  to  such  a  creek,  run,  or  river,  to  adminis- 
ter baptism  to  C.  D.  or  F.     There  is  no  such 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  165 

thing  in  the  New  Testament.  .John  was  at 
Jordan,  Viud  Enon,  and  "in  the  wilderness," 
but  these  were  his  places  for  preaching.  And 
in  the  same  chapel  where  he  preached  there  he 
gave  the  ordinance. 

9th.  We  have  shown  that  nothing  can  be 
determined  with  certainty,  from  Romans  and 
Colossians,  wdth  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
from  the  allusion  of  the  apostle  to  burying ;  as 
the  text  equally  refers  to  '^  planting'^  and  "cn^- 
djixion^  as  to  "  burying,''^  and  the  text  has  a 
higher  and  more  important  allusion.  And  that 
a  burial  is  never  performed  by  dipping  or 
plunging,  but  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  the  dust 
upon  the  coffin.  And  that  the  Baptists  greatly 
err  when  they  make  baptism  represent  the 
BURIAL  and  RESURRECTION  OF  Christ,  instead 
of  the  v/ashing  away  of  inoral  impurity,  by  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire.  Thus,  in 
order  to  support  a  theory,  they  wrest  one 
of  the  Christian  sacraments  from  its  proper 
place,  and  make  it  the  representative  of  that  to 
which  the  great  Lawgiver  never  appointed  it. 
With  all  their  clamour  about  "  the  liquid  grave" 
and  "the  significant  rite,"  many  of  them  have 
yet  to  learn  the  nature  and  meaning  of  Chris- 
tian baptism. 

10th.  We  have  shown  that  the  idea  of  follow- 
ing Christ  in  John's  baptism  is  more  specious 
than  Scriptural,  as  Christ's  baptism  was  pecu- 
liar, and  as  John  did  not  give  Christian  baptism 
to  his  followers,  being  the  minister  of  an  inferior 
dispensation. 


166  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

11th.  We  have  shown,  that  if  the  Baptists 
will  insist  on  deriving  the  evidence  of  immer- 
sion from  the  ancient  church  in  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  centuries,  and  will  attempt  to 
prove  thereby  that  immersion  was  the  "  apos- 
tolic pattern,"  then  they  must  take  the  conse- 
quences, and  believe  that  the  apostles,  the 
ministers  of  a  religion  scrupulously  modest,  bap- 
tized men  and  women  "naked  as  Adam  and 
Eve"  before  they  fell,  and  that  they  used  salt, 
milk  and  honey,  oil,  immersion  three  times,  white 
garments  for  the  baptized,  &c.,&c.;  as  this  was 
the  pattern  of  the  ancient  church,  according  to 
Wall,  Robinson,  and  others.  The  practice  of 
immersing  people  with  their  clothes  on  is  a 
modern  invention,  about  as  far  from  the  "  pat- 
tern of  the  ancient  church'^  as  is  our  mode  by 
pouring.  For  if  baptism  is  a  washing,  as  the 
ancients  considered  it,  then  we  should  consider 
it  rather  a  novel,  senseless  thing  to  see  a  man 
attempting  to  wash  his  feet  with  his  shoes  and 
stockings  on,  or  his  hands  with  his  gloves  on. 
They  built  baptisteries,  to  be  sure,  and  endea- 
voured to  work  by  this  pattern  ;  but  when  they 
found  that  this  child  of  superstition  could  not 
be  maintained  without  scandalous  occurrences 
taking  place  in  them,  (see  Miller  on  Baptism, 
p.  105,)  the  true  friends  of  rehgion  laid  aside 
the  practice  of  baptism  by  immersion  upon 
naked  subjects,  as  the  Mennonites  have  the 
practice  of  dipping  altogether.  And  that  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance  among  our 
Baptist  friends  now  is  attended  with  serious 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  167 

difficulties,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  we  hear 
more  said  about  "  taking  up  the  cross'^  in  bap- 
tism than  in  taking  up  all  other  crosses;  and 
we  know  that  great  alarm  and  perturbation  of 
spirit  often  accompanies  the  administration,  in 
the  case  of  females  especially,  which  renders 
devotional  feelings  out  of  the  question,  at  least 
for  the  moment.  We  speak  not  from  theory^ 
but  from  the  undoubted  testimony  of  the  parties 
co?icer7ied. 

In  conclusion,  we  remark,  that  as  Christ,  in 
applying  water  to  the  feet  of  his  disciples,  gave 
Peter  to  understand  that  this  partial  application 
of  the  water  indicated  an  interest  in  the 
Saviour,  so  we  conclude  that  the  application 
of  water  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  it  on  the 
head,  (a  much  more  vital  and  noble  part  than 
the  feet,)  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
HoLV  Ghost,  answers  all  the  purposes  of  the 
ordinance,  and  is  valid  Christian  baptism. 


A   FURTHER   APPEAL, 
BY   H.  SLICER, 


IN  REPLY  TO 

THE  TWENTY-ONE  LETTERS  ADDRESSED  TO  HIM  BY 
MR.  BROADDUS. 


"  Speaking  the  truth  in  love."— St.  Paul. 

"  Truth,  like  light,  always  travels  in  straight  lines."— Laron. 

Candid  reader !  to  you,  and  not  to  Mr.  B., 
shall  I  address  myself  in  the  review  of  these 
letters.  I  have  the  consolation  to  know  that, 
although  the  advocate  of  Pedobaptist  views  may 
be  weak,  the  cause  is  strong,  and  rests  not  upon 
the  talents  or  ingenuity  of  any  man,  however 
skilled  in  argument. 

I  It  would  be  as  fair  to  infer  the  incorrectness 
of  the  views  of  Baptists  from  the  evil  practices 
and  visionary  theories  of  Muntzer  and  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptists,  as  for  Mr.  B.  to  attempt  so 
far  to  connect  me  with  the  Pedobaptist  views 
as  to  infer  their  weakness  and  unsoundness  from 
what  he  is  pleased  to  consider  my  misrepre- 
sentations of  Ids  arguments.  For  the  intelligent 
reader  will  perceive  that  the  gentleman  arro- 
gates to  himself  and  his  views,  not  only  all  the 
argument,  but  all  the  Scripture  authorities  also. 
Hear  him,  page  13  :  "I  do  not  blame  you,  sir, 
for  not  producing  any  argument  in  favour  of 
your  theory;  for  arguments  there  are  none,  in 


OBLIGATION,  ETC.,  OF  BAPTISM.  169 

the  wide  compass  of  creation,  to  prove  that 
infants  are  proper  subjects  of  gospel  baptism  " 
This  is  only  one  of  many  broad  declarations, 
unsupported  by  proof,  contained  in  his  letters. 
The  reader  will  perceive,  from  the  above  quota- 
tion, how  little  hope  is  to  be  entertained  of 
making  any  impression  upon  men  who  claim  to 
have  in  possession  all  the  argument  in  "  the 
wide  compass  of  creation'''  on  the  subject  of 
Christian  baptism. 

What  I  have  written  in  the  following  pages 
is  designed  for  those  who  have  intelligence  and 
candour  sufficient,  at  least,  to  admit  that  they 
are  not  too  wise  to  learn,  or  too  knowing  to  be 
taught  something  more  on  the  subject  of  this 
solemn  and  important  ordinance  ;  and  who  will 
weigh  in  the  balances  of  impartial  judgment 
what  may  be  advanced,  convinced  that  the  cause 
of  truth  can  never  suffer  by  investigation. 

Some  of  these  letters  I  shall  notice  ;  others 
I  shall  barely  allude  to,  as  I  have  answered  the 
points  contained  in  them  at  length  in  the  first 
"Appeal,"  and  I  cannot  consent  to  waste  either 
my  own  time,  or  the  reader's,  in  repeating  over 
those  parts  of  my  argument  which  Mr.  B.  has 
not  seen  fit  to  attempt  to  answer.  It  was  my 
aim,  in  the  first  reply  to  him,  to  condense  the 
matter  as  much  as  possible ;  this  I  shall  still 
keep  in  view,  convinced  that  the  strength  of  an 
argument  does  not  consist  in  the  use  of  many 
words,  but  in  "  words  fitly  spoken." 

Mr.  Broaddus  sets  out  by  professing  to  have 
no  other  object  in  view  "  than  to  maintain  the 


170  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

purity  of  our  Lord's  institutions,"  and  yet  it  is 
manifest,  in  his  "  note  to  the  reader,"  and 
throughout  his  twenty-one  letters,  that  the  vin- 
dication of  his  oiDJi  reputation,  which  he  consi- 
dered implicated,  gave  him  more  concern  than 
any  thing  else  involved  in  the  controversy ;  and 
he  has  fallen  upon  the  strange  expedient  of 
proving  himself  innocent  of  mutilating,  by  an  at- 
tempt to  prove  me  guilty;'  with  how  much  suc- 
cess the  candid  reader  will  be  able  to  discern. 

In  his  first  letter,  page  5,  he  acknowledges 
that  I  had  offered  "  to  meet  any  minister,  or 
layman,  in  the  bounds  of  my  district,"  and  yet, 
although  he  was  fairly  included  in  the  offer,  he 
says  "  he  had  received  no  offer  from  me." 

Then,  fearing,  I  suppose,  that  his  language 
was  somewhat  contradictory,  he  adds  :  "  But  I 
will  be  candid  enough  to  acknowledge,  that  if 
you  had  formally  challenged  me  to  an  oral  dis- 
cussion, I  should  have  declined  it,  for  several 
reasons."  He  then  gives  three  reasons,  which 
may  have  satisfied  that  gentleman's  understand- 
ing and  conscience,  but  the  flimsy  character  of 
which,  I  doubt  not,  the  discerning  pubhc  will 
discover.  I  will  here  set  down  his  reasons. 
He  says  :  "  In  the  first  place,  common  fame 
had  informed  me  that  you  were  naturally  of  a 
temperament  which  must  render  a  debate  with 
you  very  disagreeable  to  a  man  of  ordinary 
sensibility."  I  had  previously  learned,  indeed, 
that  the  gentleman  had  given  the  above  reason 
to  some  person  or  persons  privately,  but  I  could 
not  fully  credit  it  at  the  time.     I  thought,  how- 


.MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  171 

ever,  if  that  was  his  private  reason,  he  would 
hardly  so  far  forget  himself  as  to  put  it  in  print ; 
thus  publicly  sinning  against  the  law  of  "  that 
charity  which  covereth  a  multitude  of  sins  ;" 
"  taking  up  a  reproach  against  his  neighbour," 
even  though  "  common  fame^''  might  have  laid  it 
down  at  his  feet.  "  Common  fame'''  once  said 
of  Him  that  was  pure  and  spotless,  "He  hath 
a  devil,  and  is  mad,  why  hear  ye  him  ?" — "  He 
stirreth  up  the  people" — "  He  speaketh  blas- 
phemies," &c.  It  is  enough  for  the  servant  that 
he  fare  as  his  Lord.  As  Mr.  B.  would  have  it 
understood  that  he  is  conversant  with  that  book 
that  gives  "  correction  in  righteousness^^''  he  will, 
perhaps,  upon  reflection,  see  his  error ;  and 
may,  perchance,  perceive  that  it  is  hardly 
modest  to  talk  of  the  temperament  of  others, 
while  his  letters  give  such  fearful  evidence  of 
a  mixture  of  the  sanguine  and  choleric  in  his 
own.  If  he  will  look  at  the  "  Course  of  Time," 
book  viii,  he  may  possibly  learn  a  lesson  from 
the  Christian  poet  that  will  be  of  service  to  him 
in  future.     Of  "  common  fame,"  Pollok  says  : 

"  She  was  so  infamous  for  lies, 
That  he,  who  of  her  sayings,  on  his  creed, 
The  fewest  enter'd,  was  deem'd  wisest  man." 

Secondly  ;  Mr.  B.  says,  "  I  doubted  whether 
I  should  be  able,  amid  the  exciting  circum- 
stances of  a  public  debate,  to  present  my  own 
views  of  the  subject  in  a  proper  spirit."  So 
it  seems  he  was  afraid  of  himself,  as  well  as  of 
me.     As  he  has  thus  referred  to  himself  I  may 


172  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

be  permitted  to  close  this  point  by  saying,  he 
thought,  no  doubt,  a  spark  of  my  fire  might 
possibly  fall  into  his  tinder-box,  and  that  the 
effect  might  be  disastrous  to  his  own  cause. 
"  Prudence  is  the  better  part  of  valour ;"  and 
he  that  knows  he  carries  a  powder  magazine 
about  him  does  well  to  keep  at  a  respectful 
distance  from  sparks.  So  much  for  his  second 
reason. 

Thirdly,  he  was  afraid  to  trust  the  people 
with  an  oral  argument,  thinking  they  would  not 
be  able  to  judge  of  its  strength.  In  this,  at 
least,  we  should  have  been  equal,  as  they  could 
have  judged  of  the  argument  from  Ids  lips,  as 
well  as  from  mine. 

I  regret  the  necessity  of  noticing  these  things, 
rather  foreign  from  the  merits  of  the  contro- 
versy ;  as  they  may  be  deemed  somewhat  per- 
sonal in  their  nature. 

The  attempt  Mr.  B.  makes,  in  his  first  letter, 
to  show  that  the  passage  in  the  nineteenth 
chapter  of  Acts  does  not  furnish  evidence  that 
John's  baptism  differed  from  Christian  baptism 
is  truly  a  lame  attempt.  How  changeable  are 
the  views  of  those  who  contend  for  immersion 
as  the  exclusive  mode !  The  old  Anabaptists 
used  to  quote  this  passage  to  sustain  them  in 
rebaptizing.  But  now  Mr.  B.  seems  to  suspect 
that  possibly  they  were  not  rebaptized  at  all. 
He  says,  "  Many  eminent  men  have  very  plau- 
sibly contended  that  Paul  did  not  rebaptize 
them." 

"  Plausible"  as  their  views  are  in  his  judg- 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  173 

ment,  he  is  not  able  to  make  up  his  mind  yet  to 
contradict  the  plain  narrative  of  St.  Luke,  but 
supposes,  without  any  shadow  of  evidence  to 
support  him,  that  there  was  some  defect  in  the 
baptism  which  the  twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus 
had  received,  although  John's  baptism  itself 
was  not  defective.  He  says,  that  "  various 
reasons  might  be  assigned  for  their  being  re- 
baptized,  without,  in  the  smallest  degree,  dis- 
crediting John's  as  Christian  baptism."  But 
the  "  various  reasons'''  turn  out  to  be  07ie  only^ 
and  that  so  meagre  as  to  be  unsupported  by 
any  evidence — merely  a  creation  of  Mr,  B.'s 
own  imagination !  First,  he  has  to  suppose 
that  those  persons  were  baptized  by  some  of 
John's  disciples;  secondly,  that  those  disciples 
of  John  had  not  heard  of  the  recent  commission 
given  to  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  and  thirdly, 
that  the  twelve,  at  Ephesas,  were  baptized  with 
a  defective  baptism,  being  taught  to  believe  on 
ci  Saviour  yet  to  come. 

Now,  candid  reader,  all  this  in  Mr.  B.  is 
perfectly  gratuitous,  for  there  is  not  a  word  of 
it  in  the  chapter.  He  might  become  a  believer 
in  infant  baptism,  if  it  would  suit  him,  by  a 
much  smaller  exercise  of  his  guessing  capacity. 
For  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  children  men- 
tioned by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  who  were 
taken  in  the  Saviour's  arms,  if  he  would  only 
be  willing  to  suppose  one  thing  instead  of  three, 
and  say,  "  possibly"  they  were  baptized,  as  well 
as  blessed,  then  we  should  have  him  an  advo- 
cate for  infant  baptism.     The  intelligent  reader 


174  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

will  perceive  how  coiu'cnient  a  thing  our  oppo- 
nents sometimes  find  an  inference  to  be  in  help- 
ing them  out  of  a  difficulty. 

On  page  8,  Mr.  B.  makes  another  effort  to 
prove  that  "  there  never  was  a  visible  church 
of  Christ  in  existence,  until  he  came  and  made 
arrangements  himself  for  discerning,  by  means 
of  ordinances,  between  the  righteous  and  the 
Avicked."  Here,  gentle  reader,  is  a  new  w^ay 
of  discerning  "  between  the  precious  and  the 
vile."  "  Ordinances  !" — I  suppose  he  means 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper ! !  Was  there 
ever  a  case  known,  since  the  opening  of  the 
gospel  dispensation,  in  which,  by  means  of  these 
ordinances,  it  was  discerned  that  an  individual 
was  an  unworthy  member  of  the  church  of 
Christ  ?  Did  ever  the  ordinarices  distinguish,  in 
the  Baptist  Church,  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  ?  Mr.  B.  says  in  his  Dialogue,  page 
117,  that  "  Elder  G.  and  all  his  churches  have 
been  excluded  from  the  Baptist  denomination, 
in  consequence  of  his  immorality."  Was  this 
immorality  discerned  hy  means  of  ordinances  ? 
On  the  same  page  he  gives  us  the  true  mode 
of  discerning,  where  he  speaks  of  an  influential 
"  individual,  whose  conduct  has  proved  him  to'  be 
an  unworthy  member  of  the  church^  So,  after 
all,  it  seems  that  the  Baptists  judge  of  people, 
7iot  by  the  "  ordinances,"  but  by  "  their  conduct ;" 
just  as  the  apostles  judged  of  Judas,  Demas, 
Simon  the  sorcerer,  and  the  incestuous  Co- 
rinthian ;  and  just  as  the  priests  and  ministers 
did  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.    Mr.  B.  says, 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  175 

page  8,  "  No  rules  were  prescribed,  under  the 
former  dispensation,  by  which  to  separate  the 
(wicked)  from  the  privileges  of  those  that  were 
worthy."  We  will  appeal  from  this  statement 
"  to  the  law  and  the  testimony,"  Exod.  xii,  15  : 
"  For  whosoever  eateth  leavened  bread,  from 
the  first  day  until  the  seventh  day,  that  soul 
shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel."  Num.  ix,  13: 
"  But  the  man  that  is  clean,  &c..  and  forbeareth 
to  keep  the  passover,  even  the  same  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  his  people — that  man  shall  hear 
his  sin.^^ 

See  Lev.  xxiv,  10-23,  and  Deut.  xxix,  21. 
These  are  a  few  of  the  many  passages  which 
go  to  show  that  the  church,  under  the  former 
dispensation,  was  not  that  promiscuous  assem- 
bly of  wicked  and  righteous  persons,  in  the 
enjoyment  of  equal  privileges,  that  Mr.  B.  seems 
to  think  it  was  ;  but  that  it  was  under  a  rigid 
discipline,  "  separating  the  precious  from  the 
viler 

The  Baptists  suppose,  because  they  have 
been  baptized  by  immersion,  that  therefore  they 
have  a  mark  upon  them  by  which  they  are  dis- 
tinguished from  others ;  wdiereas  no  one  could 
discern  from  the  fact  of  their  having  been  bap- 
tized once,  or  twenty  times,  that  they  were 
worthy  members  of  the  visible  church  of  Christ. 
They  might  be  '•  washed  only  to  fouler  stains," 
so  that  after  all  Mr.  B.  says  about  ^^  discerning 
hy  ordinances'^  is  a  mere  fancy  of  his  own. 

My  argument  for  the  unity  of  the  church  of 
the  true  God  stands  unshaken  by  any  thing  I 


176  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AND 

have  yet  seen  from  Mr.  B.     God  never  had  but 
one  churchy  and  will  never  have  less  or  more. 

The  illustration  from  Rom.  xi,  which  I  used 
to  show  the  unity  of  the  church,  seems  rather  to 
have  thrown  Mr.  B.  into  a  difficulty.  "  By  the 
root,  sap,  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree,"  he  says, 
"no  doubt  the  apostle  intends  the  means  of 
grace  with  which  they  (the  Jewish  nation)  had 
so  long  been  blessed.  Such  only  as  believed 
retained  these  blessings,  and,  by  the  new  order 
of  things  which  Christ  had  instituted,  were 
united  with  Gentile  believers  in  partaking  of 
them.  Here  was  a  visible  church  of  Christ. ^^ — 
Page  9.  Now,  observe,  according  to  this  re- 
presentation, the  visible  church  of  Christ  enjoys 
the  '■''means  of  grace  ^''  which  the  Jewish  nation 
formerly  possessed.  And  the  apostle,  also, 
says,  that  when  the  Jews  return  from  their  un- 
belief, "  they  shall  be  grafted  into  their  own  olive 
tree.""  In  this  passage,  Mr.  B.  fairly  admits  that 
the  believing  Jews  remained  in  the  possession 
of  their  privileges,  and  that  the  Gentiles  were 
incorporated  with  them.  And  he  says,  I  may 
call  the  Jewish  establishment  '*  a  typical  church, 
or  a  national  church,  but  not  a  visible  church 
of  Jesus  Christ."  Reader,  was  not  one  of  the 
privileges  which  they  enjoyed  (which  he  calls 
"  means  of  grace")  the  right  of  dedicating  their 
infant  offspring  to  the  true  God,  in  an  initiatory 
rite?  Now,  although  JNIr,  B.  acknowledges  that 
the  root  and  fatness  still  remain  the  same  to 
those  that  believed,  he  will  have  it  that  the 
believing  parent  and  the  child  are  deprived  of  a 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  177 

privilege  which  had  been  long  enjoyed.  And 
the  anomaly  is  presented  of  a  mother,  a  part  of 
whose  sons  have  been  recognised  as  church 
members  by  circumcision,  while  those  born  to 
her,  after  her  reception  of  the  Messiah,  are  left, 
so  far  as  any  outward  sign  or  rite  is  concerned, 
in  as  outcast  a  condition  as  the  children  of  her 
heathen  neighbours.  And  this,  too,  under  a 
dispensation  of  increased  light  and  enlarged 
privileges  !!! 

On  page  13,  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  render  my 
argument  ridiculous.  After  cutting  the  sentence 
in  two,  (the  old  trade,)  putting  a  period  where  I 
had  put  a  comma,  so  as  to  make  it  appear  that 
the  quotation  was  a  whole  sentence,  and  also 
leaving  out  a  note  of  interrogation  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  paragraph,  he  says,  "  Singular  rea- 
soning, truly  I''' — did  any  man  ever  hear  before 
of  such  an  argument  ?  Mr.  B.  had  said,  "  We 
know  that  Esau  and  Ishmael,  and  others,  de- 
scendants of  Abraham,  were  rejected  from  the 
covenant  of  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ," — and  I 
asked.  How  can  he  know  this  ?  when,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  showing,  the  covenant  of  salva- 
tion was  not  offered  to  tliem,  and  the  only  cove- 
nant of  which  they  knew  any  thing  w^as  purely 
of  a  temporal  nature.  I  still  ask,  Where  is  it 
written  that  they  were  excluded  from  the  cove- 
nant of  salvation  ? 

The  gentleman,  after  taking  the  liberties 
stated  above  with  what  I  had  said,  complains 
exceedingly,  on  the  same  page,  that  I  had  at- 
tempted, in  quoting  him,  to  make  him  appear 
13 


178  OELIGATIOX,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  my  readers  ;  and  says, 
**  This  seeins  to  be  a  favourite  method  with 
him,"  (me.)  And  after  preparing  the  reader  for 
a  display  of  the  very  unfair  manner  in  which  I 
had  treated  him,  he  sets  down  two  passages  in 
parallel  columns,  and  invites  the  reader  to  com- 
pare them.  I  have  compared  them  again  and 
again,  without  seeing  that  they  differ  at  all  in 
the  sense.  Thinking,  perhaps,  1  might  not  be 
able  myself  to  see  so  clearly  in  the  matter  as 
"would  a  disinterested  person,  I  requested  ten 
or  twelve  intelligent  gentlemen  successively  to 
compare  them,  to  see  if  tkei/ -could  discover  ^ny 
sense  in  Mr.  B.'s  quotation  that  is  not  in  mine. 
So  far  I  have  found  no  one  who  M^as  sufficiently 
sharp  sighted  to  see  the  difference  that  Mr.  B, 
complains  of.  As  for  his  complaint  that  the 
word  rights,  in  the  last  sentence,  is  put  instead 
of  the  word  rites,  as  in  his  quotation,  I  have 
only  to  say,  the  accidental  substitution  of  that 
Avord  for  the  other  did  ?iot  affect  the  controversij 
at  all.  It  was  evidently  an  error  of  the  com- 
positor :  I  gained  nothing  by  it ;  and  all  the 
harm  done  was  to  make  tautology  in  the  sen- 
tence, and  give  Mr.  B.  an  opportunity  to  groan, 
without  cause.  Although  I  am  satisfied  that  I 
have  done  the  gentleman  no  wrong  in  quoting 
him,  yet  to  gratify  him,  in  the  revised  edition  I 
have  placed  his  ov\'n  quotation  at  length,  and  I 
hope  the  compositor  will,  in  the  last  sentence 
of  the  quotation,  get  the  right  word,  "  rite.'''  So 
that  the  gentleman,  if  he  should  honour  me 
\v'\i\\   any  further  notice,   will   not   have   this 


MODE   OK   r.APTISM.  179 

*■'  straw  to  catch  at,'''  in  supporting  his  sinking 
cause,  and  vindicating  liis  injured  reputation. 

In  his  remarks  on  my '' string  of  questions,'^ 
as  he  calls  them,  page  15,  he  seems  quite  to 
have  lost  his  temper.  I  suppose  those  interro- 
gatories awoke  his  "  ordinary^'  or  e.r/'rc/ordinary 
*'  sensibility P  He  is  at  a  loss,  he  says,  what 
to  attribute  those  questions  ft) ; — whether  to  "  a 
want  of  common  sense,"  or  to  wickedness,  in 
"  intentional  misrepresentation."  He  will  have 
it  that  either  my  understcmding  or  my  heart  is 
defective.  He  hopes,  however,  I  will  "  find 
some  explanation  that  will  relieve  him."  Now, 
candid  reader,  I  have  no  means  by  which  to 
learn  what  Mr.  B.'s  meaning  ivas,  except  from 
the  words  which  he  used.  If  he  cannot  find 
means  to  make  himself  imderstood,  that  is  not 
my  fault,  and  I  have  no  fears  that  the  intelligent 
reader  will  understand  his  words  in  any  other 
sense  than  the  obvious  one  which  I  gave  them. 
He  has  acknowledged  that  the  statements  made 
in  my  quotation  "  are  contradicted  by  the  facts 
in  the  case."  Then  if  the  reader  shall  find  that 
I  have  quoted  him  fairly,  it  will  appear  that  he 
himself  has  contradicted  the  facts  relative  to  the 
institution  of  circumcision  in  the  family  of 
Abraham.     My  appeal  is  to  you. 

I  will  here  present  the  reader  with  a  quota- 
tion from  Mr.  B.'s  Strictures,  page  4,  which 
may  throw  some  light  on  the  views  expressed 
by  him  in  his  Sermon,  page  17  :  "  The  Ahra- 
hamic   dispensation    secured    to    all   icho   xmre 

CIRCUMCISED,     A     PORTION      IN     THE     EARTHLY 


180  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Canaan."  Now,  will  tliat  gentleman  say  that 
this  statement  is  not  contradicted  by  the  facts  ? 
Ishmael,  and  Esan,  and  their  seed,  were  cir- 
cumcised, and  the  men  of  Abraham's  house, 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  in  number ;  and 
did  all,  or  any  of  the?n,  have  any  portion  in  the 
EARTHLY  Canaan  ?  I  auswer,  NO — and  every 
man  who  is  acquainted  with  his  Bible,  and  has 
not  "«  theory  to  supporC  by  contradicting  facts, 
will  answer,  no. 

On  page  15,  in  noticing  my  remarks  relative 
to  the  new  constitution  of  Virginia,  which  I  had 
used  by  way  of  illustration,  Mr.  B.,  instead  of 
giving  the  illustration  as  I  had  stated  it,  gives 
just  enough  of  it  to  make  a  wrong  impression 
and  answer  his  own  purposes.  If  he  had  given 
all  my  words  in  the  case,  the  reader  would  have 
seen  that  I  Avas  perfectly  correct.  I  refer  the 
reader  to  the  "  Appeal"  for  the  illustration  as  I 
used  it.  Why  did  not  the  gentleman  see  fit  to 
give  the  illustration  which  I  took  from  the  com- 
mon law  ?  I  suppose  he  thought  it  best  to  keep 
that  out  of  the  view  of  his  readers,  as  he  has 
most  of  my  arguments. 

As  Mr.  B.  has  quoted  our  Discipline  on  this 
subject,  and  says  members  of  other  churches 
have  to  undergo  an  examination,  and  takes 
upon  himself  to  suppose  that  we  would  make 
the  matter  of  baptism  a  point  in  the  examina- 
tion of  the  applicant,  I  will  only  say,  if  he  had 
found  it  convenient  to  quote  the  next  sentence, 
the  reader  would  have  seen  the  explanation  of 
the  one  he  did  quote.    Here  it  is  :  "No  person 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  181 

shall  be  admilted  to  the  Lord's  supper  among 
us,  who  is  gwlty  of  any  practice  for  which  we 
would  exclude  a  member  of  our  church." 

As  Mr,  B.,  page  19,  has  dragged  in  the  sub- 
ject of  female  communion,  and  has  declared 
that.  "  there  is  a  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord'  for  it  in 
every  passage  of  Scripture  that  speaks  of  the 
Lord's  supper  at  all,"  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
examine  this  matter  a  little.  In  the  first  men- 
tion of  the  supper,  Luke  xxii,  14-20,  it  is  said 
that  Jesus  "  sat  down,  and  the  twelve  ajjostles 
w  ith  him."  Now,  will  the  gentleman  say  that 
part  of  the  apostles  were  females  ?  He  says, 
in  every  jmssagc  where  the  supper  is  mentioned 
there  is  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  female 
communion.  It  happens  that  we  have  the  names 
of  the  twelve  who  were  at  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  supper,  and  there  is  no  female  name 
among  them.  But  he  says,  '•'  disciples  met,  and 
we  know^,  without  any  inference  about  it,  that 
the  females  met  with  them  ;  because  we  learn 
that  both  men  and  women  were  made  disciples 
by  baptism."  "  You  might  as  well  contend  that 
it  is  an  '  inference'  to  say  that  \\iQ males  met  to 
break  bread ;  for  they  are  no  more  specified  than 
the  females.''^  Mr.  B.  surely  presumes  very 
much  upon  the  ignorance  or  credulity  of  his 
readers,  when  he  makes  such  sw^eeping  de- 
clarations as  the  above.  Does  he  suppose  that 
they  aTv'3  so  little  acquainted  with  their  Bibles — 
the  book  he  so  often  calls  the  "poor  man's 
lexicon" — that  he  expects  to  pass  off  on  them 
such   unsupported    declarations  ?     I   refer   the 


182  OBLltfATIOX,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

reader  to  1  Cor.  xi,  28,  29,  33~"  But  let  a  ma:^ 
examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of  that 
bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup.  For  he  that 
eateth  and  drinketli  unworthily — to  himself, 
&c.  Wherefore,  my  brethren,  when  ye  come 
together  to  eat,"  &:c.  And  yet,  Mr.  B.  says, 
males  are  no  more  specijied  than  females.  Our 
Baptist  writers,  aware  that  the  course  of  rea- 
soning they  pursue  with  regard  to  infants,  deny- 
ing them  the  rite  of  baptism,  because  they  say 
there  is  no  precept  or  precedent  for  baptizing 
children,  would,  if  adopted,  in  the  case  of 
females,  exclude  them  from  the  Lord^s  table,  have 
attempted  to  furnish  a  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord." 
And  they  will  not  allow  that  there  is  any  infer- 
ence in  the  matter.  They  argue  thus  :  Women 
were  baptized  as  well  as  men — 'Women  and  men 
constituted  the  churches — the  churches  partook 
of  the  Lord's  supper — therefore  women  have  a 
right  to  the  Lord's  table.  But  is  not  this  an 
inference  ?  This  is  no  express  warrant.  It  is 
strange  that  those  who  reason  thus  for  women 
should  yet  refuse  all  inference  for  the  infant 
children  of  women. 

As  Mr.  B.,  page  20,  has  concluded,  without 
reason,  that  I  had  either  given  up  the  argument 
from  proselyte  baptism,  or  had  not  made  up  an 
opinion  on  that  point,  and  expresses  a  hope 
that  he  will  hear  no  more  on  the  subject,  I  have 
introduced  a  short  article  in  the  enlarged  Ap- 
peal on  proselyte  baptism,  to  which  I  beg  leave 
to  refer  the  reader.  To  what  I  have  there  said 
on  the  subject  I  here  add  a  remark,  and  several 


MODE   OF  BAPTlSlvr.  183 

auihorities.  The  baptism  of  proselytes  is  gene- 
rally supposed  to  have  taken  its  rise  from  the 
baptism  of  the  Jews  when  passing  through  the 
Red  Sea,  to  which  the  apostle  refers,  1  Cor.  x, 
1,2.  As  they,  coming  out  from  idolatrous 
Eg}-pt,  were  "  all  baptized  to  Moses,"  the  Jews 
considered,  in  all  after  ages,  that  those  who 
renounced  idolatry,  and  joined  the  church  of 
the  true  God,  should  be  baptized  as  well  as 
circumcised.  In  proof  of  which,  I  refer  to  the 
quotations  given  below. 

Calmet's  Dictionary,  article  Proselyte  :  "  The 
Jews  require  three  things  in  a  complete  prose- 
lyte ;  baptism^  circumcision,  and  sacrifice  ;  but 
for  women,  only  baptism  and  sacrifice." 

Witsius,  one  of  Mr.  B.'s  witnesses,  says, 
"  When  a  Gentile  became  a  proselyte  of  right- 
eousness, three  ceremonies  were  used,  viz., 
circumcision,  haptism,  and  sacrifice." 

Stackhouse,  another  of  Mr.  B.'s  witnesses, 
says,  "  The  custom  of  the  Jews,  in  all  ages, 
has  been  to  receive  their  heathen  proselytes 
by  haptism,  as  well  as  by  sacrifice  and  circum- 
cision." 

Dr.  Wall,  another  of  Mr.  B.'s  witnesses,  says, 
*'  Whenever  Gentiles  were  proselyted  to  the 
Jewish  religion,  they  were  initiated  by  circum- 
cision, the  ofiering  of  a  sacrifice,  and  haptism. 
They  were  all  baptized,  males  and  females, 
adults  and  infants.  This  was  their  consta7it 
practice,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of  our 
Saviour,  and  from  that  period  to  the  present 
dav." 


184  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS',  AND 

Finally,  I  quote  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  another 
of  Mr.  B.'s  witnesses :  "  The  apostles  knew 
well  that  the  Jews  not  only  circumcised  the^ 
children  of  proselytes,  but  also  baptized  them. 
The  children,  and  even  infants,  of  proselytes 
were  baptized  among  the  Jews.  They  were, 
in  consequence,  reputed  clean,  and  partakers 
of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant." 

The  apostles,  being  by  birth  and  education 
Jews,  would,  therefore,  in  "  discipiing  all  na- 
tions," admit  the  children  with  the  parents,  un- 
less forbidden  so  to  do. 

The  astonishment  expressed  at  John's  bap- 
tizing did  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  he  prac- 
tised baptism,  but  because  he  declared  he  was 
neither  the  Christ,  nor  Elias,  nor  that  prophet, 
at  the  same  time  administering  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism ; — that  he  should,  while  disclaiming  the 
character  of  a  minister,  exercise  the  functions 
of  one.     See  John  i,  19-26. 

The  quibble  of  Mr.  B.,  on  page  20,  about 
infants  not  being  saved  "  by  any  thing  pertain- 
ing to  the  gospel  dispensation,"  is  one  among 
many  instances  which  prove  the  non-committal 
character  of  his  theological  views.  While  he 
calls  upon  me  to  state  frankly  and  plainly  what 
our  views  are,  he  studiously  avoids  giving  his 
own  with  regard  to  the  condition  of  infants. 
He  says,  "  We,  or  at  least  /,  do  not  place  their 
salvation  upon  any  thing  pertaining  to  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.^^ 

On  page  29,  he  says,  with  regard  to  infants, 
"I  have  not  attempted  to  show  (nor  shall  I) 


MODE  OF   BAPTlS^f.  185 

how  ihey  are  fitted  for  heaven  ;  but  I  am  sure 
it  is  not  through  sanclification  of  the  Spirit  and 
beUef  of  the  truth."  Here  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive, !\Ir.  B.  gives  no  opinion  about  the  manner 
in  which  infants  are  saved.  Does  he  believe 
at  all  in  the  salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy  ? 
I  do  not  ask  this  question  because  he  does  not 
baptize  infants,  but  because  he  was  once  an 
advocate  of  a  system  oi  jmrtial  grace;  and  al- 
though "  he  has  changed  his  manner  of  preach- 
ing," I  have  not  learned  that  he  has  avowed  the 
'•  change  of  liis  belief  in  one  single  item." 

Now,  candid  reader,  I  shall  appeal  to  the 
Philadelphia  Baptist  Confession  of  Faith,  page 
45,  for  evidence  that  the  Baptists  formerly  held 
the  regeneration  of  some  infants,  at  least,  by 
Christ  through  the  Spirit,  and  I  suppose  the 
Spirit  "pertains  to  the  gospel  dispensation." 
The  words  of  the  Confession  are — "  Elect  in- 
fants, dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh 
when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleases :  so, 
also,  are  all  elect  persons,  v\dio  are  incapable 
of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of 
the  word."  The  reader  will  observe,  that  they 
quote  the  words  of  Christ  to  adult  Nicodemus, 
in  proof  of  the  position  here  stated — "  Except 
a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  king- 
dom  of  God ;" — "  The  wind  bloweth  where  it 
listeth,"  &LC. ; — "  So  is  every  one  that  is  born 
of  the  Spirit."  It  seems,  then,  that  those  plain, 
honest  people,  who  were  not  afraid  that  the  world 
should  know  lohat  they  held  as  doctrine,  considered 


186  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

that  infants  were  fitted  for  heaven  through  the 
operation  of  the  Spirit.  The  Confession  I  quote 
from  was  put  forth  by  the  "  elders  and  brethren, 
in  London  and  the  country,"  and  adopted  by  the 
association  which  met  at  Philadelphia  in  1742. 

But  perhaps  I  shall  be  told  these  views  are 
not  entertained  note  by  the  Virginia  Baptists. 
And  as  Mr.  Broaddus  says,  "  The  Baptists 
generally  acknowledge  no  Confession  of  Faith 
but  the  New  Testament,"  page  24,  I  may  be 
referred  to  the  New  Testament  to  learn  Baptist 
views.  However,  if  the  Baptists  will  publish 
"  Declarations  of  Faith,"  I  must  be  allowed  to 
quote  them  as  authority.  In  "  A  Declaration 
of  Faith,"  published  by  the  United  Baptists  of 
Virginia,  (or  several  associations  of  them,) 
printed  in  Alexandria,  1833,  they  declare,  page 
14,  "  The  creature  being  wholly  passive  there- 
in, being  dead  in  sins  and  trespasses,  until, 
being  quickened  and  renewed  hy  the  Holy  Spirit, 
he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and 
embrace  the  grace  conveyed  in  it,"  &c.  So  it 
seems,  candid  reader,  that  although  Mr.  B.  will 
not  state  his  views  (if  he  has  any)  about  the 
manner  in  which  infants  are  saved,  or  fitted  for 
heaven,  that  in  the  Adew  of  the  Confessions  of 
Faith  quoted  above,  adults  and  infants  are  both 
"  renewed  or  regenerated"  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Mr.  B.  afTects  to  believe  that  he  has  found 
out  a  wonderful  difference  between  my  views 
and  Mr.  Wesley's,  on  the  subject  of  the  condi- 
tion of  infants ;  and  he  seems  so  pleased  with 
the  discovery,  that  he  drags  it  forward,  for  the 


MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  18? 

entertainment  of  his  readers,  in  several  different 
letters.  Let  us  look  at  it  a  little.  On  page  32 
he  says,  '*  Allow  me  to  quote  what  Mr.  Wesley- 
says,  and  also  what  you  yourself  say.  '  Infants 
need  to  be  washed  from  original  sin.' — Wesley's 
Works,  vol.  ix,  p.  159.  '  Infants  have  innocence 
to  recommend  them.' — Slicer's  Appeal,  p.  46. 
Is  not  this  a  disagreement  ?"  He  adds  :  "But 
you  even  disagree  with  yourself  on  this  point ; 
for,  although  you  recommend  infants  by  their 
innocence,  page  46,  you  say,  page  66,  infants 
need  an  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to 
purify  or  make  them  AoZy."  Reader,  can  you 
suppose  that  Mr.  B.  is  so  destitute  of  common 
understanding,  that  he  does  not  know  the  differ- 
ence between  innocence  and  moral  purity  or  holi- 
ness 1  A  teacher  in  the  Baptist  Church,  and  yet 
affecting  not  to  know  that  innocence  and  the 
v/ant  of  purity  are  compatible  !  I  did  say  that 
infants  had  innocence  to  recommend  them  to 
baptism,  and  I  explained  it  by  stating  they  were 
in  a  state  of  justitication.  In  proof  of  which  I 
quoted  Rom.  v,  18,  '•'  The  free  gift  hath  passed 
upon  all,  to  justification  of  life."  I  did  say  that 
infants  needed  the  application  of  the  blood  of 
Jesus,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  to  make  them 
holy,  and  fit  them  for  heaven  ;  and  I  gave  the 
same  reason  for  it  that  Mr.  Wesley  did,  viz., 
"  Infants  need  to  be  washed  from  original  sin." 
My  words  on  page  66  are,  "  I  suppose  Mr.  B. 
holds  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  in  opposition 
to  Pelagius  ;  if  so,  infants  need  an  application 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  purify  or  make  them 


188  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

holy."  Now  you  see,  intelligent  reader,  that 
Mr.  B.  has  taken  my  words  out  of  their  proper 
connection  ;  that  he  has  brought  a  passage  from 
page  66,  and  put  it  opposite  a  passage  on  page 
46,  that  referred  to  another  matter,  in  order  to 
impose  upon  his  readers  an  impression  that  I 
disagree  with  myself;  and,  as  though  he  thought 
he  could  convince  sensible  people  by  this  kind 
of  management,  says,  with  an  air  of  triumph, 
"  So  glaring  are  the  contradictions  into  which 
this  human  device  of  baptizing  infants  can  lead 
sensible  men."  Candid  reader,  do  you  see  any 
disagreement  between  Mr.  Wesley's  views  and 
mine  ?  Do  you  see  that  my  own  vieios  are  un- 
equal ?    "I  speak  as  unto  wise  men." 

I  must  now  ask  a  question  or  two  further,  to 
show  the  management  of  this  gentleman.  Do 
any  of  Mr.  B.'s  members  enjoy  the  blessing  of 
justification  ?  I  have  no  doubt  many  of  them 
do.  Being  justified,  are  they  innocent^  or  are 
\\iey  guilty?  Innocent,  I  suppose,  for  I  have 
always  been  taught  to  believe  that  justification 
takes  away  the  guilt  of  sin.  This,  too,  I  find 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Philadelphia  Confes- 
sion above  quoted,  where  they  distinguish  ^'«.s/i- 
ficaiion  and  sanctification,  and  speak  of  them 
under  different  heads.  Well,  then,  those  per- 
sons among  Mr.  B.'s  members  who  are  justified, 
i.  e.,  delivered  from  guilt,  are  they  holy  in  heart 
also  ?  If  they  are  not,  they  need  the  sanctifying 
operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Does  Mr.  B. 
suppose  that  children  are  guilty?  He  seems  to 
be  greatly  troubled  that  I  should  contend  for 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  189 

their  innocence.  I  supposed  that  the  veriest 
novice  in  theology  would  be  able  to  distinguish 
between  personal  guilt,  arising  from  actual  sin 
against  God's  law,  and  that  corruption  of  nature 
which  every  child  brings  into  the  world  with  it, 
which  both  Mr.  Wesley  and  myself  have  called 
"  original  sin,^'  and  which  the  Baptist  Confes- 
sion, page  32,  calls  "  original  corruption,  from 
which  proceed  all  actual  transgressions."  But  in 
this,  it  seems,  I  am  disappointed — Mr.  B.  cannot 
understand  it.  He  says,  page  30,  "  I  acknow- 
ledge myself  utterly  unable  to  comprehend." 
"  It  will  require  some  one  better  skilled  in 
mi/ sti feat  ion  than  myself  to  untangle  all  this 
jumble  of  contradictions."  He  asks,  "  How 
those  who  are  not  guilty — in  a  state  of  justifi- 
cation— can  need  an  application  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  to  purify 
them  T  Page  29,  he  says  also,  ''  What  do  you 
mean,  Mr.  S.  ?  Innocence  need  purify i fig ?  I  am 
truly  astonished  at  such  views  of  the  subject." 
I  suppose  he  thought  that  if  he  cried  out  from 
aiitonishment,  and  especially  if  he  could  make 
an  impression  in  the  Methodist  community  that 
Mr.  Wesley's  views  and  mine  were  at  variance, 
he  might  scare  some  timid  soul  into  the  water. 
Hear  him,  page  21:  "Here  is  the  author  of 
the  Methodist  book  of  Discipline  and  one  of 
its  authorized  expounders  as  far  apart  in  their 
views  of  a  gospel  ordinance  as  guilt  is  from 
innocence  ! ! !  You  need  not  wonder,  sir,  that, 
under  these  circumstances,  those  that  have  not 
skill  sufficient  to  weld  cold  iron  and  hot  together, 


190  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

should,  with  the  Bible  (the  '  poor  man's  Lexi- 
con') to  guide  them,  reject  both  your  theory 
and  Mr.  Wesley's."  It  may  be  that,  if  Mr.  B. 
had  a  creed,  and  should  make  it  known  to  the 
world,  and  it  should  not  be  too  "  gloriously  un- 
certain" to  be  understood,  that  some  of  his  views 
might  at  least  be  as  objectionable  even  to  some 
of  the  Baptists  as  mine  appear  to  be  to  him, 
especially  as  he  has  been  strongly  suspected  of 
heresy  by  many  of  "  the  baptized."  Query — Is 
this  the  reason  why  the  gentleman  says,  page 

23,  "  I  HAVE  NO  CREED  NOR  CATECHISM  FOR 

THEM  TO  LEARN  ?"  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell 
has  no  creed,  but  he  has  found  it  convenient  to 
make  a  translation  of  the  New  Testament  to 
suit  his  views.  Whenever  an  individual  wishes 
to  pull  down  the  fences  of  established  doctrine 
and  discipline,  he  raises  a  hue  and  cry  about 
creeds  and  confessions  of  faith,  saying,  "  The 
Bible  is  my  creed,"  "  The  Bible  is  my  dis- 
cipline ;"  and  for  what  is  all  this,  but  to  make 
an  impression  upon  the  credulous  that  his  views 
are  more  in  keeping  with  the  Scriptures  than 
those  of  others,  in  order  that  he  may  form  a 
party,  and  set  himself  up  as  its  oracle  ?  thus 
giving  an  illustration  of  the  words  of  the  apostle, 
*'  Of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking 
perverse  things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after 
them,''  Acts  xx,  30. 

I  liere,  candid  reader,  warn  you  against  all 
leaders  of  parties,  who  emblazon  upon  their 
banners,    "  No    creed    but    the   Bible.''     They 


.AlODE    OF   BAPTISM.  191 

practise  a  kind  of  "  religious  piracy.''  and  by 
"  soft  words"  and  "  fair  speeches"  delude  the 
simple. 

In  the  early  part  of  my  ministry,  I  was 
brought  in  contact  with  some  who  h^d,  profess- 
edly^ no  creed,  and  no  discipline,  but  the  New 
Testament.  They  thought  this  creed  taught 
them  to  reject  infant  baptism  ;  to  hold  immer- 
sion as  the  exclusive  mode ;  to  de7iy  the  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  and  also  the  divinity  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  How  many  other  errors  they  held 
it  was  difficult  to  tell,  for  their  system^  as  the 
systems  of  all  such,  possessed  a  kind  q/' chame- 
leon CHARACTER.  I  hold  the  two  following 
axioms  to  be  undeniable :  1st.  Men  who  are 
intelligent  will  have  a  well-digested  system  of 
religious  views ;  and  2d.  That  men  who  have 
moral  honesty  will  not  hesitate  to  publish  those 
views  to  the  world.  A  non-committal  course 
on  Christian  doctrine  is  as  unworthy  a  high- 
minded,  honourable  man,  as  it  is  unbecoming 
the  frankness  that  ought  always  to  mark  the 
course  of  a  religious  teacher.  If  a  man  he  in 
the  ministry,  and  his  mind  is  unsettled,  let  him 
retire  until  he  has  satisfied  himself  v:hat  is  truth, 
and  vjhat  is  error.  Let  him  not  stand  up  before 
intelhgent  men,  and,  reading  a  few  paragraphs 
from  a  religious  newspaper,  say,  "  My  friends, 
these  contain  my  present  vieios  of  Christian 
doctrine.  I  say  my  pi'esent  views — I  do  not  say 
that  they  will  be  my  views  twelve  months 
hence,  or  one  month  from  now.  but  thev  con- 


192  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

tain  my  present  viewsP  The  nineteenth  century 
is  not  the  age  to  be  making,  every  month,  dis- 
coveries in  Christian  doctrine. 

What  did  Mr,  B.  expect  to  gain,  by  quoting 
against  infants,  page  30,  the  words  of  St.  Peter, 
Acts  XV,  9  ?  In  the  first  place,  he  quotes  the 
text  wrong.  His  words  are,  "  Peter  says, '  God 
purities  the  heart  by  faith.'"  Peter's  words  are, 
"  And  put  no  difference  between  us  and  them, 
purifying  their  hearts  by  faith."  Peter's  words 
refer  to  particular  individuals,  "  their  hearts.'" 
They  were  adult  Gentile  converts,  as  the  reader 
may  see  by  referring  to  the  passage.  Peter 
puts  adult  converts  in  the  premises,  and  Mr.  B. 
puts  children  in  the  conclusion.  This  is  a 
favourite  method  of  some  Baptists.  Suppose 
Peter  does  say  their  hearts  were  purified  by 
faith,  does  that  prove  the  heart  cannot  be  puri- 
fied without  faith  ?  St.  Paul  says,  Heb.  ix,  14, 
"  That  the  conscience  is  purged  by  the  blood 
of  Christ."  And  in  Titus  iii,  5,  he  says,  God 
saved  us  "  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and 
renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.''''  I  wonder,  candid 
reader,  if  Mr.  B.  was  aware  of  the  dilemma  into 
which  qiioting  Peter's  words  as  being  against 
our  children  would  bring  him?  Ehher  their 
hearts  can  be  purified  unthout  faith, — the?/  need 
no  purijication, — or  they  cannot  go  to  heaveii. 
If  they  are  born  fit  for  heaven  in  Mr.  B.'s  view, 
then, he  is  a  Pelagian,  and  holds  infant  purity. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  are  born  unclean, 
unfit  for  heaven,  and  cannot  he  purified  without 
faith,  and  are  incapable  of  believing,  then,  unless 


MODE    OF    BAPTISM.  193 

less  in  their  impurity  they  can  go  to  a  holy  hea- 
ven, they  must,  of  necessity,  be  lost.  Such  are 
the  consequences  which  follow  from  this  gentle- 
7nan's  jnctJiod  of  quoting  Scripture  against  infants. 

The  Scriptures  say  expressly  that  John  the 
Baptist  "  did  no  miracle.''''  Yet  Mr.  B.,  page  29, 
will  have  it  that  his  being  "  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost"  was  "  altogether  '  b,  miraculous  injlue7icej' 
and  suggests  nothing  to  us  on  the  subject  of  the 
salvation  of  infants,"  John's  ^^  miraculous  in- 
fluence," then,  lay  dormant  all  his  life,  for  "  he 
did  no  miracle.'''' 

On  page  28,  Mr.  B.  says,  with  regard  to  the 
children  that  were  brought  to  Christ,  and  taken 
in  his  arms,  "  I  did  not  affirm  that  there  never 
were  any  unconscious  infants  brought  to  Jesus ; 
I  only  expressed  a  douht  on  the  subject :  and  I 
still  have  too  much  douht  on  the  subject  to  ad- 
mit of  my  regulating  a  gospel  ordinance  by  it." 
It  may  be,  if  this  gentleman  should  write  once 
or  twice  more,  that  he  will  become  a  believer  at 
least  in  the  infancy  of  those  children,  for  he 
seems  to  be  getting  rid  of  his  doubts  ;  and  as 
doubts  leave  him,  I  suppose  faith  will  take  pos- 
session of  his  mind.  In  the  Sermon,  page  13, 
he  says,  "  I  am  led  to  douht  exceedingly.''''  I 
think  he  is  a  little  ashamed  of  that  now,  for  in 
quoting  himself,  he  says,  "  /  expressed  a  douht,^* 
and  "  I  still  have  too  much  douht^''  &;c.  And  he 
says,  "  he  hopes  I  will  see  the  difference  between 
affirming  that  '  there  never  were,'  and  doubting 
'  whether  there  ever  were.' "  And  adds,  "  If 
you  can  see  the  difference,  you  may  decide 
13 


194  OBLIGATIONS,    SUBJECTS,    AND 

who  ought  to  '  hlusK  in  this  case."  I  suppose 
there  is  about  as  much  difference  between  the 
man  who  has  "  exceeding  doubts'''  about  the  truth 
of  God's  word,  and  he  that  "  affirms"  that  the 
word  is  not  true,  as  there  is  between  a  well- 
grown  hoy  and  a  man.  They  are  both  of  the 
same  family,  only  one  is  a  little  larger  than  the 
other.  He  that  "  exceedingly  doubts"  God's 
word,  and  he  that  denies  its  truth,  are  both  "  of 
atiQ  family  of  unbelief .''^  Reader,  do  you  see  the 
difference  ? 

Although  I  had  called  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  the  parallel  passage  in  Luke  xviii,  15, 
where  it  is  said,  "  They  brought  unto  him  also 
INFANTS,"  and  had  hinted  at  the  unfairness  of 
Mr.  B.  in  quoting  the  passage  from  Matthew 
and  Mark,  and  bringing  his  "lexicon"  to  ex- 
plain Trai&ia  in  those  passages,  while  he  omitted 
to  quote  Luke,  where  the  word  /3pe9r/  is  used 
instead  of  -acdia,  yet  in  his  "  Letters"  he  plays 
the  same  game.  Although  Luke,  the  physician, 
wrote  after  Matthew  and  Mark,  and  was,  pos- 
sibly, the  most  learned  of  the  three,  and  whose 
mention  of  the  case  may  be  presumed  to  give 
the  fair  explanation  of  the  passage  in  Matthew 
and  Mark,  yet  Mr.  B.  does  not  refer  to  Luke  at 
all :  because  he  knew  that  the  sense  of  ,<3,o£d>7 
could  not,  by  any  possible  construction,  be  ex- 
plained away.  He  knew  that  Schrevelius,  to 
whom  he  referred  for  the  meaning  of  the  ori- 
ginal word  in  Mark,  interprets  the  word  in 
Luke  to  mean,  "  a  very  little  child."  And 
if  he  had  consulted  "  Donnegan's  Lexicon"  on 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  195 

the  word,  he  would  have  found  that  it  signifies 
"  A  NEW-BORN  BABE,"  and  ROt  "  boij,  cliUd,  youth, 
servant^''  (fee,  as  Mr.  B.  defines  the  word  in 
Mark  to  mean.  This  inflexible  word  in  Luke 
could  not  be  twisted  so  as  to  make  against 
infants,  therefore  he  passed  it  over  in  solemn 
silence  ! 

What  he  says,  page  29,  about  children  being 
the  "  model  for  adults,"  and  doves,  and  sheep, 
and  serpents  being  models  also,  is  far-fetched, 
ajid  perfectly  ridiculous.  When  Mr.  B.  fur- 
nishes a  passage  from  God's  word,  where  it  is 
said  that  Christ  took  sheep,  or  doves,  or  ser- 
pents ^'- into  his  arins"  "and  blessed  them,"  and 
said,  "  Of  such  is  the  hingdom  of  God"  and, 
"  'S'i/^<?r  them  to  come  to  me,  and  forbid  them  not''' 
then,  and  not  till  then,  will  there  appear  to  be 
some  sense  in  w^hat  he  calls  "  a  syllogism." 
I  know  it  is  often  the  case  that  men  get  into 
the  "  visible  church"  on  earth  who  have  more 
of  the  "  loisdom  of  the  serpent'''  than  the  "  harm- 
Icssness  of  the  dove,^^  hut  Christ  has  never  said 
of  them,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven^ 

After  reading  Elder  Dagg's  exposition  .  of 
1  Cor.  vii,  14,  as  given  by  Mr.  B.  in  his  seventh 
letter,  1  am  more  fully  persuaded  of  the  correct- 
ness of  the  view  I  had  given  of  the  passage  in 
my  former  argument,  to  which  I  beg  leave  to 
refer  the  reader.  It  would  have  been  better  if 
Mr.  B.  could  have  given  his  readers  one  text  of 
Scripture,  only,  against  my  view  of  the  passage, 
than  to  have  given  all  the  Greek  and  English 
of  Mr.  Dagg's    exposition.     I  quoted  several. 


196  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

and  referred  to  nine  otlier  texts  in  support  of 
my  views. 

On  page  35,  Mr.  B.  attempts  to  furnish  a  salvo 
for  the  contradiction  I  had  pointed  out  between 
his  Sermon  and  the  Strictures.  And  he  asks, 
^^Are  not  infants  unhelievers V  "Surely  you 
will  not  deny  this ;  and  5^et  they  are  not  guilty 
of  the  sin  of  unbelief  for  they  are  not  required  to 
believe."  "  All  I  mean  by  denominating  them 
unhelievers  is,  that  they  are  not  believers,  neither 
is  it  possible  they  could  be.  Where  now  is  the 
discrepancy?"  Well,  then,  it  is  not  possible 
that  children  should  believe.  And  yet  he  will 
have  it  that  they  are  unbelievers.  Mr.  B.  is  the 
first  man,  whose  productions  I  have  ever  read, 
who  could  so  far  forget  or  expose  himself  as 
even  to  ask,  "^4re  not  infants  unbelievers  V  A 
new  kind  of  unbelievers  truly  ! !  Suppose,  can- 
did reader,  I  apply  a  little  of  Mr.  B.'s  logic  to 
this  case,  in  order  to  show  more  fully  its  ab- 
surdity. You  will  observe,  after  all  his  vaunting 
about  his  acquaintance  with  the  Scriptures,  and 
referring  me  to  them  to  learn  Baptist  "  customs," 
(page  24,)  he  is  exceedingly  careful  not  to  give 
us  much  Scripture  in  support  of  his  views. 
I  think  the  reader  will  find  that  my  argument 
in  the  "  Appeal"  is  supported  by  at  least  two 
texts  of  Scripture  for  every  one  furnished  by 
him,  either  in  his  Sermon  or  Letters.  This  by 
the  way,  however.  But  to  the  point,  ^^  Are 
not  children  unbelievers  V  Where  is  the  text  ? 
"  Surely  you  will  not  deny  this  V  No,  I  will  not, 
if  God's  word  says  so.     I  will  not  even  '^  doubt 


MODE  Of  BAPTISM.  197 

zV,"  if  the  Bible  declares  it.  Where  is  the  text? 
It  is  not  to  be  found.  Then  I  shall  surely  deny 
it,  for  I  cannot  take  it  upon  Mr.  B.'s  mere  as- 
sertion, when  he  is  in  the  habit  of  making 
sweeping  declarations  and  dogmatical  asser- 
tions, misupported  by  proof.  But  the  gentle- 
man ?nea?is  that  "  they  are  unbelievers,  because 
they  are  not  believers."  Wo  to  the  children 
if  his  assertions  are  correct,  and  his  logic  sound. 
In  John  iii,  36,  it  is  said,  "He  that  believeth 
NOT  the  Son  shall  not  see  life  ;  but  the  icrath 
of  God  ahideth  o?i  himy  The  commission  says, 
"  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 
And  in  Rev.  xxi,  8,  "  The  unbelieving  are 
classed  with  murderers  and  idolaters,^''  and  "  shall 
have  their  part  in  the  lake  burning  with  jire  and 
brimstone''  Now  for  Mr.  B.'s  logic.  "  The 
commission  excludes  all  unbelievers,  whether 
unconscious  infants  or  unbelieving  adults'"'  Then 
if  their  not  believing  constitutes  them  unbe- 
lievers, look  at  the  fearful  condition  in  which 
they  are  placed  by  the  texts  above  quoted. 
"  They  shall  not  see  life,"  and  be  with  the  vilest 
characters  "m  the  lake  of  fire. "  This  is  the 
issue  to  which  Mr.  B.'s  question,  "Are  not  in- 
fants unbelievers .""  leads  to.  The  Scriptures 
nowhere  attribute  faith  or  unbelief  to  infants. 
Because  they  each  and  equally  require  the  volun- 
tary exercise  of  the  ?nind  and  heart  with  regard 
to  what  God  has  spoken,  of  which  infants  are 
incapable.  And  no  man  who  understands  the 
force  of  language  will  ask  such  preposterous 
and    silly    questions,    unless    he    is    closely 


198  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

wedded  to  a  system  which  he  calculates  to 
help  thereby. 

Mr.  B.,  page  36,  attempts  to  make  out  that  I 
have  misconstrued  his  quotation  from  Dr.  Hill. 
The  reader  can  see,  by  referring  to  my  argu- 
ment, that  I  have  quoted  Mr.  B.  correctly,  (if 
he  has  not  quoted  the  doctor  correctly  that  is 
his  look  out,)  and  have  given  the  words  their 
obvious  meaning.  Mr.  B.  represents  Dr.  Hill 
as  saying,  "  The  writings  of  the  fathers  have 
been  so  long  in  the  keeping  of  the  corrupt 
Church  of  Rome,  and  have  been  so  altered  by 
pious  frauds,  &c.,  that  our  confidence  in  them 
must  be  greatly  weakened  indeed."  And  I  asked 
if  the  infidel  might  not  urge  the  same  reason 
against  his  receiving  the  New  Testament  scrip- 
tures, as  they,  too,  were  long  in  the  keeping  of 
the  Church  of  Rome  ?  Mr.  B.  calls  this  "  an 
attempt  to  expose  him  and  Dr.  Hill  to  the  wit 
of  infidels."  If  he  has  exposed  himself,  that  is 
his  misfortune,  not  my  fault. 

His  attempt  to  destroy  the  credibility  of  Ori- 
gen  as  a  witness,  by  recounting  some  of  his 
errors,  is  truly  pitiful.  What,  I  ask,  had  Ori- 
gen's  "  visionary  views'*^  to  do  with  his  testimony 
concerning  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  viz.,  ^^  Infants 
by  the  usage  of  the  church  are  baptized?"  His 
visionary  views  had  just  as  much  to  do  with  his 
testimony  in  this  case,  as  would  the  "  visionary 
views"  of  Stork,  of  the  German  Anabaptists,  if 
he  had  given  testimony  in  court,  or  to  the  world, 
that  John  Boccold,  the  leader  of  the  sect,  held 
polygamy,  and  had,  at  one  time,  fourteen  wives. 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  199 

See  Ross's  History  of  All  Religions,  and  Robin- 
son's Charles  V.,  vol.  ii,  p.  301.  I  suppose  in 
neither  case  ought  the  testimony  to  be  rendered 
inA-alid  by  the  visionary  views  of  the  witness  ia 
some  other  matters. 

I  am  entirely  satisfied  with  the  collateral  tes- 
timony for  infant  baptism  given  from  the  writings 
of  the  fathers  in  theforjner  argument,  and  shall 
not  repeat  them  here,  nor  add  to  the  number  of 
the  witnesses,  as  I  conceive  for  the  candid  they 
are  quite  suficient,  and  others  would  not  he  con- 
vinced hy  a  cloud  of  witnesses.  It  was  to  the 
interest  of  Demetrius  and  his  silversmiths,  when 
"  their  craft  was  in  danger,^''  to  cry  out,  "  Great 
is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians ;"  this  was  more 
easily  done  than  either  to  prove  the  claims  of 
Diana,  or  to  disprove  the  preaching  of  St.  Paul. 

I  had  shown  that  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  Judson  dif- 
fered only  about  four  hundred  years  in  fixing  the 
origin  of  infant  baptism  :  Mr.  B.,  page  39,  com- 
plains that  "  I  have  done  him  great  injustice"  in 
this  case.  He  seems,  candid  reader,  to  have 
been  so  much  hurt,  that  he  does  little  beside 
complain  of  injustice  done  him.  He  not  only 
disagreed  with  Mr.  Judson,  but  now,  in  the  very 
paragraph  in  which  he  complains,  he  contradicts 
himself  as  I  shall  here  show.  He  says  first, 
"  The  practice  of  baptizing  infants  grev:  out  of 
an  opinion  very  early  entertained  by  the  Church 
of  Rome,  that  no  unbaptized  person  could  in- 
herit the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Then  he  says, 
"  For  although  the  baptism  of  infants  was  in- 
vented as  early  as  the  close  of  the  second  century. 


200  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

the  sprinkling  of  infants  was  not.  regularly  in- 
troduced until  753,"  &c.  Now,  reader,  will  he 
say  that  the  Church  of  Rome  existed  at  the 
close  of  the  second  century  ?*  If  he  will  con- 
tinue to  display  his  want  of  acquaintance  with 
church  history,  or  to  say  and  unsay  in  the  same 
paragraph,  that  is  not  my  fault.  I  shall  show 
the  reader,  before  I  have  done  with  his  Letters, 
that  there  are  some  other  things  that  need  a  salvo. 

What  I  said  of  the  Waldenses  being  Pedo- 
baptists,  and  the  proof  I  adduced,  has  not  been 
set  aside  by  what  Mr.  B.  has  adduced  from  Mr. 
Jones  and  Mosheim.  I  cannot  believe  that 
Mr.  B.  himself  thought  the  evidence  in  point ; 
for,  immediately  after  adducing  his  testimony, 
he  says,  "  Still  I  do  not  build  upon  this  my 
views  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  No :  I  have 
a  better  manual."  Then  he  refers  to  the  "  word 
of  his  king,"  and  to  the  "  commission,"  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized."  He  says,  "  This 
puts  an  end  to  the  controversy,  in  my  mind." 
This,  after  all,  is  the  only  argument  the  Baptists 
have  against  infant  baptism. 

Mr.  B.,  page  41,  drags  in  the  subject  of  ordi- 
nation, and  asks,  with,  a  haughty  air,  "What 
right  had  Mr.  Wesley  to  ordain  bishops  and 
priests  ?"  and  introduces  Dr.  Cook's  book,  as 
though  he  helieved  the  doctor's  views.  Now, 
reader,  when  Mr.  B.  and  myself  are  done  with 

*  By  **  the  Church  of  Rome''  \vc  understand  tlic  autlior 
not  to  refer  to  the  church  at  Rome,  as  it  existed  in  apos- 
tolic times,  but  the  Roman  hierarchy  as  it  has  oxistcu  for 
several  centuries  under  the  reign  of  the  popes. — En. 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  201 

the  subject  of  baptism,  if  he  prefers  a  contro- 
versy with  me  on  ordination  and  succession, 
then  I  shall  think  it  the  most  proper  time  to 
answer  his  question  relative  to  Mr.  Wesley. 
Until  then,  I  refer  him  on  that  subject  to  Bishop 
Emory's  "  Defence  of  our  Fathers,"  and  to  D. 
Isaacs  on  "  Ecclesiastical  Claims." 

On  page  42  w^e  have  another  instance  of  the 
gentleman's  complaining  without  cause.  Instead 
of  quoting  my  language  in  the  case,  he  makes 
a  desperate  effort  to  excite  public  sympathy  in 
his  favour.  He  says,  "  I  am  truly  sorry  to  find 
that  you  are  willing  to  sustain  your  cause  by  au 
attack  upon  my  motives."  "  You  represent  me 
(page  76)  as  being  '  prepared  to  make  a  sacri- 
fice of  all  historical  evidence  upon  the  altar  of 
a  prejudice  that  is  both  deaf  and  blind,"  &c. 
1  represented  no  such  thing.  I  did  not  say  a 
word  about  his  sacrificing  at  any  altar.  I  did 
not  mention  his  name  or  allude  to  him  in  the 
sentence,  the  latter  part  of  which  only  he  quotes. 
And,  if  he  had  sneered  at  the  conduct  and  feel- 
ings of  mothers,  who  wished  to  have  their 
children  baptized  before  they  died,  was  it  not 
much  worse  in  him  to  sneer,  than  for  me  to 
allude  to  his  having  done  it  1  If  he  had  not 
done  it,  why  did  he  not  deny  it,  instead  of 
giving  his  readers  a  display  about  "  the  talents 
and  dignity  of  a  presiding  elder,"  about  "  Go- 
liath and  David,"  and  "  policy,"  and  "  common 
politeness,"  c^c.  ? 

Now,  candid  reader,  I  never  supposed  the 
important  and  responsible  office  which  I  held, 


202  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AND 

when  I  answered  Mr.  B.,  gave  me  any  increase 
of  talents  or  dignity.  If  it  did,  however,  as  he 
intimates,  as  my  term  of  service,  according  to 
our  economy,  has  now  expired,  he  will  have 
the  consolation  to  know  that  he  contends  with 
one  in  a  different  capacity,  only  an  elder,  like 
himself.  It  is  possible  Mr.  B.  may  be  able  to 
teach  me  "po^/cy,"  as  I  do  not  profess  to  be  an 
adept  in  craftiness.  I  suppose  the  intelligent 
reader  of  his  Letters  will  conclude  that  if  I 
should  need  lessons  in  "  common  politeness,^^  it 
will  be  necessary  for  me  to  seek  some  other 
teacher. 

Mr.  B.  invited  me  to  write  on  baptism,  and  I 
complied,  perhaps  not  to  his  mind  or  liking. 
Notwithstanding  he  invited  me  to  write,  and 
offered  inducements  to  me,  he  says,  page  43, 
"  I  neglected  my  district,  in  order  to  write  these 
eighty  pages."  And  gives  this  in  such  a  way, 
as  to  lead  his  readers  to  suppose  that  he  quoted 
it  from  the  Appeal,  page  6.  I  have  only  to  say, 
that  this  is  a  sin  of  which  I  am  not  guilty,  and 
I  have  no  fears  that  it  will  be  imputed  to  me  by 
those  who  know  me.  If  Mr.  B.  can  help  his 
cause  by  any  such  groundless  allegations,  and 
can  find  that  his  conscience  will  sustain  him  in 
being  an  "  accuser  of  the  brethren,"  he  has  my 
full  consent  to  avail  himself  of  it.  It  will  occur 
to  the  reader,  however,  that  that  must  be  a  bad 
cause  which  needs  such  support. 

The  case  of  Simon,  the  sorcerer,  which  I 
dwelt  upon  in  my  Appeal,  seems  to  have  pre- 
sented some  difficulty  in  the  way  of  Mr.  B.'s 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  203 

views.  He  touches  it  on  page  44,  and  then 
drops  it  as  though  it  burnt  him.  He  again 
comes  up  to  it,  page  47,  and,  after  all,  blinks 
the  question  involved  in  the  case,  thinking,  I 
suppose,  that  it  was  prudent  not  "  to  follow  me" 
in  that  case,  as  it  presented  "  a  two-horned 
dilemma." 

His  affecting,  on  page  44,  not  to  understand 
my  remarks  relative  to  ApoUos,  because,  as  he 
says,  "  I  have  not  expressed  myself  with  clear- 
ness," is  one  of  his  stratagems  of  warfare. 
What  I  said  relative  to  Apollos,  and  Saul  of 
Tarsus,  I  produced  plain  Scripture  to  support. 
As  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  his  readers  can 
have  any  tolerable  idea  of  ray  argument  on  the 
subject  of  adult  candidates  for  baptism,  from  the 
manner  in  which  he  has  represented  it  in  his 
Letters,  I  beg  leave  to  refer  them  to  the  first 
Appeal,  pages  90-97.  A  dust  may  be  raised 
to  obscure  the  truth,  but  it  is  hard  to  reason 
successfully  against  the  facts  stated  in  the 
Scriptures  of  truth. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  46,  "  None  are  really  will- 
ing, but  those  who  are  really  converted."  This 
has  a  strong  spice  of  "  new  divinity."  The 
apostle  Paul,  I  think  in  Rom.  vii,  teaches  an 
opposite  doctrine  ;  showing  that  there  may  be 
a  will  to  good,  while  there  is  the  absence  of  moral 
power  to  perform  it :  "  For  the  good  that  I  would, 
I  do  not ;  but  the  evil  that  I  would  not,  that  I 
do."  Mr.  B.  thinks  on  the  same  page,  that  be- 
cause "  faith  comes  by  hearing,"  therefore  the 
falling  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Cornelius  had 


204  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

nothing  to  do  with  his  believing  in  Christ.  He 
should  have  recollected  that  faith  is  said  to  be 
"  of  the  operation  of  God,"  as  well  as  to  come 
hy  hearing.  He  says,  to  be  sure,  page  43,  "I 
believe  that  men  need  the  influence  of  the  Spirit^ 
in  order  to  their  becoming  real  believers,  genuine 
converts  ;  but  this  influence  is  nowhere  called 
'receiving  the  Holy  Ghost.'"  Here  is  truly  a 
distinctiofi  without  a  difference.  Query,  Is  there 
any  difference  between  "  the  Spirit"  and  "  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?"  Query,  Can  a  man  be  influenced 
hy  the  Spirit.,  before  he  receives  the  Holy  Ghost  1 
But  he  will  have  it,  that  receiving  the  Holy 
Ghost  signifies  his  "  extraordinary  influenced 
Joel  says,  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last 
days,  (saith  God,)  that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit 
upon  all  flesh,"  Joel  ii,  28, 32.  And  their  "  being 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, Peter  said,  Acts  ii,  16,  "is  that  which 
was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel."  Now,  the 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit,  in  Peter's  judgment, 
is  the  same  as  being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  Joel,  so  far  from  limiting  it  to  the  "  extra- 
ordinary  influence''^  of  the  Spirit,  given  in  primi- 
tive times,  says,  "  God  will  pour  it  out  upon  all 
flesh."  The  question  to  be  settled  by  the  reader 
is  a  very  plain  one,  viz..  Is  the  Spirit  in  its  ex' 
traordinary  influences  poured  out  upon  all  flesh  ? 
To  ask  the  question  is  to  answer  it.  The 
reader  knows  that  it  is  not.  Then  you  are  to 
decide  between  the  word  of  "  the  King,"  by  the 
mouth  of  St.  Peter,  (interpreting  the  words  of 
Joel.)  and  the  theory  of  Mr.  Broaddus. 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  205 

He  knew  that  I  had  pronounced  the  "  repeti- 
tion of  Christian  baptism  to  be  profane,"  page 
46  ;  and  yet,  by  wresting  my  words  from  their 
proper  connection,  he  attempts  to  make  out 
that,  "  according  to  my  showing,^''  those  who  be- 
lieve, m  adult  age,  are  "  fit  subjects"  of  baptism, 
although  they  may  have  been  baptized  in  in- 
fancy. And  adds,  "  If  you  refuse  to  baptize 
him,  you  may  expect  him  to  leave  you,  and 
come  over  to  us,  v/ithout  our  compassing  sea 
and  land  to  proselyte  him,"  page  47.  After  all 
the  attempts  of  such  men  as  Mr.  B.,  and  those 
who,  like  him,  make  light  of  infant  baptism,  I 
have  known  but  very  few  intelligent  persons  who 
have  been  dissatisfied  with  their  baptism  in  in- 
fancy. ]Most  of  those  with  whom  their  prose- 
lyting efforts  have  succeeded  were  those  who 
had  never  received  infant  baptism,  and  had 
been  accustomed  to  hear  it  ridiculed,  as  "  hahy 
sprbikling,^^  "  a  relic  of  popery,^''  &c. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  48,  in  giving  his  six  rea- 
sons for  opposing  "  infant  baptism,"  that  he 
would  rather  grieve  over  the  distress  of  an 
affectionate  mother,  whose  tender  infants  have 
died  without  the  "  sealing  ordinance,"  than  to 
"  sneer ;"  and  adds,  "  If  I  sneer  at  all,  it  shall 
be  at  the  conduct  of  those  who  require  this 
unscriptural  dedication  at  their  hands."  Now, 
reader,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  future  he  will 
not  sneer  at  all,  and  I  have  son;e  reason  to  hope 
that  he  will  quit  that  mode  of  argument,  at  least 
when  he  writes.  I  believe  his  Letters  of  ninety 
pages  contain  less  of  the  article  than  his  Sermon 


206  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

of  forty-two  pages.  This,  however,  may  have 
arisen  from  the  fact  that  he  had  hi?nse!f  and  me 
to  attend  to,  and  had  not  time  to  devote  to  the 
distressed  women  and  their  dying  children. 

One  of  the  principal  among  his  six  reasons 
is,  "  that  it  tends  to  defeat  the  original  design 
of  baptism."  He  says,  "  All  agree  that  baptism 
was  designed  by  the  great  Head  of  the  church 
to  separate  his  church  from  the  Avorld.  Now, 
suppose  all  to  be  baptized  in  infancy,  then  the 
whole  world  Avould  be  in  the  church,  and  the 
church,  instead  of  being  "  a  congregation  of 
faithful  men,"  "  would  include  infidels  and  un- 
believers of  every  description  ;"  their  right  to  a 
place  in  it  being  secured  to  them  It/  their  bap- 
tism." Candid  reader,  might  not  a  congrega- 
tion of  Baptists,  baptized  in  adult  age,  "  contain 
infidels  and  unbelievers  of  every  description," 
and  would  that  prove  aught  against  "  adult  bap- 
tism?" Just  as  much  as  Mr.  B.'s  argmnent 
does  against  infant  baptism.  But  he  says  bap- 
tism separates  the  church  from  the  world,  and 
that  "  a  right  to  a  place  in  the  church  is  secured 
by  baptism"  On  what  ground,  then,  can  the 
Baptists  deprive  those  who  have  been  baptized 
of  their  right  of  church  membership,  by  expelling 
them,  however  immoral  or  infidel  they  may  be, 
as  baptism  has  separated  them  from  the  world? 

His  attempt  to  connect  infant  baptism  with 
popery  is  a  stratagem  with  which  he  seems 
very  familiar ;  and  he  more  than  intimates  that 
the  support  of  infant  baptism  is  traditionary  only. 
He  says,  "  getting  their  '  pattern'  from  tradition 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  207 

instead  of  the  Bible."  This  is  a  pitiful  attempt 
to  narroiD  doivn  the  evidence  for  infant  baptism 
to  what  he  knew  was  considered  only  as  col- 
lateral, viz.,  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  or 
the  practice  of  the  church  as  the  fathers  have 
detailed  it,  .  Why  does  he  not  allude  to  the  fact, 
(in  connection  with  this  subject,)  that  the  Greek 
church,  having  no  connection  luith  the  pope,  have, 
notwithstanding,  always  held  and  practised  infant 
baptism?  He  does  not  allude  to  this  plainly, 
because  he  knows,  if  he  can  make  an  impres- 
sion on  the  public  mind  that  infant  baptism  is 
"  a  relic  of  popery,"  and  supported  only  by  the 
same  kind  of  evidence  as  the  errors  of  the 
Romish  Church,  then  he  will  succeed  in  ex- 
citing a  prejudice  against  it  that  will  help  his 
cause.  Why  does  not  this  gentleman  level  his 
artillery  against  popery  direct?  Instead  of  en- 
gaging in  this  war  against  our  children,  why 
does  he  not  use  his  influence  in  pointing  out 
and  reforming  the  errors  of  the  Romish  Church, 
such  as  transubstantiation,  masses,  &c.  ?  As  I 
am  not  blessed  with  the  same  power  of  per- 
ceiving the  horrible  evils  which  this  gentleman 
sees  growing  out  of  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism, the  reader  will  not  be  surprised  that  I 
consider  the  evils  of  which  he  complains  as 
existing  in  his  own  imagination,  and  not  in 
sober  reality.  I  am  still  of  the  opinion  that  my 
"  witty  dialogue,^''  as  he  is  pleased  to  call  it, 
contains  "  the  head  and  front"  of  the  offence 
of  this  matter. 

On  the  subject  of  the  "  baptism  of  house- 


208  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

holds"  Mr.  B.  and  myself  are  fairly  at  issne, 
especially  with  regard  to  the  signification  of 
the  term  ouiog,  the  original  term  used  in  those 
passages  that  contain  the  account  of  the  baptism 
of  the  households  of  Crispus,  the  jailer,  and 
Lydia,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  I  will  at- 
tend to  this  matter  of  difference  between  us 
when  we  have  settled  some  other  things.  We 
expressed  some  anxiety  to  know  something  of 
the  '^four  households^'  that  Mr.  B.  said  he  had 
baptized ;  but  he  has  not  had  the  goodness  to 
follow  the  example  of  St.  Luke  in  this  matter, 
and  give  us  the  names  and  residences  of  his 
Lydias  and  their  households.  Surely  those  re- 
markable cases  might  be  given  with  advantage 
to  the  cause,  if  indeed  he  is  not  more  blessed 
in  concealing  than  he  would  be  in  publishing 
them.     This  by  the  way. 

On  page  25  he  says,  "  In  my  Sermon  T  did 
not  even  conjecture  nho  they  ('  Lydia's  house- 
hold') were,  although  you  represent  me  as  sup- 
posing many  things  with  respect  to  them." 
How  strange  it  is  that  this  gentleman  will  make 
such  unqualified  declarations,  when  the  means 
for  his  conviction  are  before  the  public.  In  his 
Sermon,  page  10,  he  says,  "Who  then  were 
Lydia's  household  ?  Were  they  partners  in  her 
mercantile  operations  ?  This  might  he  so.  Were 
they  '  joivrneymen  diers  ?'  Possibly  they  were. 
Or  were  they  mere  travelling  companions?"'  (fee. 
"  They  were  brethren,  whom  Paul  and  Silas 
comforted  when  they  were  about  to  leave  the 
city;    and  could  anv  but  believers  be  brethren 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  209 

capable  of  being  comforted  ?"  Here,  the  reader 
will  perceive,  is  a.  string  of  questions,  put  by 
this  gentleman  in  his  Sermon,  for  what?  Why, 
obviously  to  convey  his  sentiments  to  his  read- 
ers in  the  case,  or  to  mislead  their  minds  and 
deceive  them.  And  yet,  after  all  these  ques- 
tions asked  by  him,  he  says,  as  you  see  above, 
"  /  did  not  even  conjecture  loho  they  iDsre,^^  and 
declares,  "  I  represent  him  as  supposing  many 
things  with  respect  to  them."  So  I  did  repre- 
sent him  as  supposing  some  things  at  least ;  and 
if  I  have  ?nisrepresented  him,  in  representing  that 
when  he  asked  those  questions,  and  answered 
them,  he  honestly  meant  what  he  said,  instead 
of  intending  to  trifle  with  his  readers,  then  I  ask 
pardon  for  thus  misrepresenting  the  gentleman, 
and  hope  he  will  extend  it  to  me,  as  he  has 
kindly  offered  to  do  in  one  of  his  letters,  in 
another  case.  The  truth  is,  candid  reader,  the 
Baptists  have  always  found  it  a  difficult  task  to 
make  out  a  family  for  Lydia,  without  supposing 
that  she  had  children.  And,  in  order  to  help 
themselves  in  the  case,  some  have  supposed 
one  thing,  and  others  another.  Some  have 
thought  that  some  of  the  women  of  whom  we 
read,  verse  13,  were  Lydia's  household  ;  others, 
discovering  that  the  word  '■^  brethren^''  occurs  in 
the  fortieth  verse,  and  finding  that  it  would  be 
hard  work  to  transform  those  "  women^^  into 
"  brethren"  have  concluded  that  they  were 
"  partners  in  business"  with  Lydia,  or  "  jour- 
neymen diers."  Mr.  B.,  however,  (as  he  can 
find  an  "  express  warrant  for  "  female  commu- 
14 


210  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

nion  in  every  passage  where  the  supper  is  men- 
tioned," and,  of  course,  can  find  women  in  the 
passage  where  the  apostle  says,  "  Let  a  man 
examine  himself;"  "Wherefore,  '"my  hrethreriy 
■when  ye  come  together  to  eat,"  &c.,  &;c.,  1  Cor. 
xi,  28,  33,)  one  would  think,  could  have  found 
no  great  difficulty  in  holding  both  the  above 
hypotheses,  as  "  the  brethren"  comforted  would 
surely  include  Lydia's  women,  and  joumeywze?* 
diers  also. 

It  was  not  at  all  necessary  for  Mr.  B.  to 
make  such  a  flourish  about  his  "little  anec- 
dote," as  he  calls  it,  and  to  put  his  readers  to 
the  trouble  of  examining  the  Scriptures  before 
they  could  find  out  his  meaning.  I  did,  at 
Upperville,  notice  that  old  lyrescription  of  the 
Baptists  for  finding  a  family  for  Lydia,  by  sup- 
posing she  had  "journeymen  diers,"  but  I  did 
not  claim  the  honour  of  inventing  it,  as  Mr.  B.'s 
informant  must  have  known,  if  he  attended  to 
what  was  said.  I  gave  it  as  a  part  of  the 
argument  of  the  Baptists.  I  presume  Mr.  B. 
has  heard  for  years  of  this  "  choice  piece  of 
wit,"  as  he  is  pleased  to  call  it,  and  I  will  not 
say,  has  often  used  it  himself.  The  reader  will 
find  this  supposition  about  Lydia's  diers  noticed 
in  Watson's  Institutes,  part  iv,  page  394  ;  and 
to  show  that  I  do  not  claim  to  be  father  of  this 
precious  creature  of  the  imagination,  I  will  give 
the  words  of  Mr.  Watson.  He  says,  "  Then, 
as  if  to  mark  more  strikingly  the  hopelessness 
of  the  attempt  to  torture  this  passage  to  favour 
an  opinion,  *  her  house'  is  made  to  consist  of 


MODE    OF   BAPTISM.  211 

journeymen  diers,  '  employed  in  preparing  the 
purple  she  sold  ;'  and  '  to  complete  the  whole, 
these  journeymen  diers,  although  not  a  word  is 
said  of  their  conversion,  nor  even  of  their  exist- 
ence, in  the  whole  story,  are  raised  into  '  the 
brethren.' " 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  27,  "  that  Timothy  and 
Luke  could  not  have  been  '  the  brethren  that 
Paul  comforted'  before  he  departed,  because 
'  Timothy  and  Luke  went  with  Paul  to  Berea,' " 
as  I  may  see,  he  says,  by  consulting  chap,  xvii, 
10-16.  I  have  consulted  the  passage,  and  can- 
not see  any  such  thing,  for  the  best  of  all  rea- 
sons, i.  e.,  it  is  not  there  to  be  seen.  Mr.  Wes- 
ley says,  in  his  note  on  the  place,  "  St.  Luke 
seems  to  have  been  left  at  Philippi."  And  if 
the  reader  w^ill  be  at  the  pains  to  look  at  the 
twentieth  chapter,  5th  and  6th  verses,  he  will 
see  that  Luke  does  not  fall  in  with  Paul  until 
they  met  at  Troas.  He  leaves  off  speaking  of 
liimself  as  one  of  Paul's  company,  in  the  six- 
teenth chapter,  and  does  not  resume  that  style 
again  until  the  twentieth  chapter.  So  xMr.  B. 
will  have  to  look  again,  and,  if  he  sees  clearly, 
he  will  then  perceive  that  Paul  loent  from  Phi- 
lippi to  Thessalonica,  and  when  a  tumult  arose 
there,  the  brethren  sent  him  and  Silas  to  Berea. 
Surely,  candid  reader,  you  will  think  that  a 
gentleman  who  blunders  as  often  as  Mr.  B.  does 
in  his  statements  as  facts,  ought  either  to  be 
more  careful,  or  less  confident  in  making  them. 

After  carefidly  noticing  his  third  effort  to  ex- 
plain this  case,  so  as  to  operate  against  the 


212  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

baptism  of  children,  I  am  entirely  satisfied  that 
the  solution  I  gave  in  my  Appeal  is  not  to  be 
set  aside  by  Mr.  B.  at  least,  as  I  propose  further 
to  demonstrate. 

He  has  so  arranged  the  words  on  page  60, 
as  to  cause  them  to  make  an  utterly  false  im- 
pression on  the  mind  of  the  reader.  I  do  not 
say  that  he  intended  this.  I  do  not  speak  of 
his  motives^  but  of  the  fact.  He  says,  "  I  do 
think,  if  your  '  wise  men'  will  but  consider  that 
Paul  and  Silas  went  into  the  house  of  Lydia, 
and  '  comforted  the  brethren,'  it  will  appear  to 
them  much  more  '  improbable'  that  they  were 
visiting  brethren  than  that  they  belonged  to  the 
family  of  Lydia."  The  reader  will  observe  he 
puts  the  words,  i?ito  the  house  of  Lydia,  in 
italics,  then  connects  them  with  "  comforted  the 
brethren"  by  the  copulative  conjunction  "  and." 
I  aver,  upon  the  authority  of  common  sense, 
that  no  man,  in  reading  the  passage  in  Acts 
without  note  or  comment,  would  ever  receive 
from  it  any  such  impression  as  his  manner  of 
presenting  it  gives.  The  words  of  Luke  are, 
"  And  they  went  out  of  the  prison,  and  entered 
into  the  house  of  Lydia :  and  when  they  had 
seen  the  brethren,  they  comforted  them,  and 
departed,"  Acts  xvi,  40, 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  the  matter  at 
issue  between  Mr.  B.  and  Mr.  Taylor,  the  editor 
of  Calmet's  Dictionary,  as  quoted  by  myself. 
Mr.  B.  says  he  does  not  know  who  this  gentle- 
man is,  nor  has  he  ever  heard  before  of  the 
passage  I  quoted.     Has  that  gentleman  never 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  213 

read  the  celebrated  debate  between  Mr.  Alex- 
ander Campbell  and  Mr.  Maccalla,  which  took 
place  in  Kentucky  ?  I  should  suppose  he  had, 
from  the  great  similarity  between  some  of  Mr. 
B.'s  and  Mr.  C.'s  criticisms.  In  this  debate 
Mr.  Taylor  is  referred  to  as  authority,  and  his 
and  Dr.  Rice's  criticism  was  adopted  by  Mr. 
Maccalla.  Mr.  Campbell  pronounced  the  criti- 
cism a  '•'-refuge  of  lies  P  Mr.  B.  says  it  is  "at 
palpable  misrepresentaiioi}.''''  This  criticism  of 
Mr.  Taylor's  is  not  only  sustained  by  Dr.  Rice, 
Mr.  Maccalla,  and  Mr.  Ralston,  but  in  substance 
by  Peter  Edwards  also.  I  might  rest  the  argu- 
ment here,  with  confidence  of  its  being  satis- 
factory to  the  candid ;  but  shall  proceed  to 
examine  some  of  the  evidence  that  Mr.  B.  has 
produced,  in  order  to  show  (as  he  says)  that 
Mr.  Taylor  has  led  me  "  completely  astray." 
He  says,  "  I  will  not  furnish  '  three  hundred' 
instances,  nor  even  '  fifty,'  but  I  will  furnish 
enough  to  satisfy  the  most  skeptical  that  the 
sacred  writers  used  the  two  words  interchange- 
ably." 

The  first  case  he  mentions  is  Luke  viii,  41 
and  51,  where  there  is  an  account  of  raising 
the  little  daughter  of  Jairus.  In  the  41st  verse 
there  is  an  evident  allusion  to  the  family,  as  the 
family  needed  his  help,  and  the  word  is  oLnog. 
In  the  51st  verse  the  dwelling  is  spoken  of,  and 
the  word  is  oLKta,  confirming  Taylor's  criticism. 
Luke  X,  5,  is  Mr.  B.'s  next  proof:  "  Into  what- 
soever house  ye  enter,  say,  Peace  be  to  this 
house."     Here,  again,  in  the  first  part  of  the 


214  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

verse  the  dweUing  is  meant ;  in  the  last  part  of 
the  verse  the  family  is  meant ;  because  Christ 
did  not  command  his  apostles  to  say.  Peace  be 
to  the  timbers,  or  brick,  or  stone,  that  formed 
the  dwelling  into  which  they  entered,  but.  Peace 
be  to  the  family,  the  oLKog.  This  more  fully 
confirms  the  view  given  in  my  former  argu- 
ment. Mr.  B.  says,  "  Jesus  calls  his  father's 
house  both  olkoc  and  olklg^^^  and  refers  to  John 
ii,  16  ;  xvi,  2.  In  the  first  passage  the  temple 
is  spoken  of,  and  the  word  is  oinog,  because  in 
this  case  the  container  is  put  for  the  contained, 
as  the  temple  was  the  residence  of  the  congre- 
gation, "  the  visible  family  of  God."  In  the 
other  passage  he  refers  to  there  is  no  such 
word  in  my  Bible,  and  I  use  the  "  common 
version."  It  is  possible  he  made  a  mistake, 
and  referred  to  John  xvi,  instead  of  xiv,  2  ; 
there  the  word  is  oiKta^  but  it  refers  to  heaven, 
and  I  suppose  the  reader  will  conclude  that  the 
earthly  temple  and  the  invisible  heaven  are  not 
exactly  the  same  thing. 

The  next  case  he  adduces  is  the  case  of  the 
oiKog  of  Stephanas,  I  Cor.  i,  16,  and  xvi,  15. 
The  apostle  says,  "  I  baptized  also  the  house- 
hold (^oLKoc)  of  Stephanas  ;"  and  in  the  close  of 
that  epistle  he  mentions  the  household  (oiKia) 
of  Stephanas ;  and  says  to  the  Corinthian 
church,  "  Ye  know  the  house  of  Stephanas," 
&c.  In  referring  to  the  baptism  of  Stephanas 
and  his  family,  he  uses  the  word  oikoc,  but  in 
referring  to  the  family's  having  "  addicted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,"  he  uses 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  215 

the  word  oiKia^  evidently  alluding  to  the  whole 
domestic  establishment.  This  is  the  same 
course  pursued  by  St.  Luke  in  Acts  xvi,  32, 
"  And  they  spake  unto  him  (the  jailer)  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house," 
{oiKia) — doubtless  the  whole  domestic  establish- 
ment were  summoned  to  the  preaching,  and 
heard  the  word  of  the  Lord,  but  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  one  inquiring  about  salvation 
but  the  jailer.  And  when  the  apostle  said, 
"  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  he  added, 
"  and  thou  shalt  be  saved  and  thy  house," 
(^ocKog) — and  he  and  all  his  were  baptized 
straightway,  and  he  brought  Paul  and  Silas 
out  of  the  outer  prison,  where  the  preaching 
took  place,  into  his  family  apartment,  ca,lled  by 
Luke  his  oikoc.  Where  the  baptism  of  Lydia's 
family  is  spoken  of  in  the  15th  verse,  the  same 
word  is  used.  "  And  when  she  was  baptized 
and  her  household,  (^oiko^,)"  &c.,  evidently  her 
family  and  her  children  are  meant,  as  scholars 
have  said,  and  as  we  shall  show  more  fully 
hereafter.  The  next  evidence  Mr.  B.  adduces 
is  John  xi,  20,  31,  where  the  dwelling  of  Mary 
and  Martha  is  called  both  oiKog  and  oiKta ;  but 
this  is  no  proof  against  Mr.  Taylor's  criticism, 
for  he  says,  "  When  oiKog  is  spoken  of  persons^ 
it  denotes  a  family  of  children ;"  but  Mr.  B.'s 
proof  does  not  present  a  case  in  point,  for  the 
passage  refers,  not  to  ^^ persons"  but  altogether 
to  a  dwelling  house.  I  suppose  the  intelligent 
reader  can  see  the  difference. 

After  adducing  the  above  quotations,  address- 


216  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

ing  mc,  he  says,  "  How  conclusively,  Mr.  S., 
do  these  passages  show  the  fallacy  of  the  dis- 
tinction which  your  '  editor'  makes  between 
otKoc  and  oiKLaJ''  Then,  thinking,  I  presume, 
that,  conclusive  as  the  evidence  he  had  given 
already  might  be,  it  would  not  be  amiss  to 
*'  make  certainty  more  certain,"  he  adds  an 
evidence  or  two  more.  One  we  will  notice  ; 
the  other  is  not  material,  as  it  proves  nothing 
to  the  point,  and  we  have  noticed  it  before. 
The  one  we  remark  upon  is  Matt,  x,  13,  "If 
the  house  (ocKca)  be  worthy,"  &c.  I  suppose 
this  refers,  as  I  said  above,  to  the  whole  domes- 
tic establishment. 

In  the  parallel  passage,  Luke  x,  5,  the  words 
are,  "  Into  whatsoever  house  (oiKia)  ye  enter, 
say.  Peace  be  to  this  house,"  [oucoc) — the  mi- 
nister enters  the  dwelling  (oiKca)  and  says. 
Peace  be  to  the  family,  (olkoc.)  These  words 
differing  sometimes  in  passages  that  are  parallel, 
may  have  arisen  out  of  the  carelessness  of 
transcribers,  for  I  suppose  they  could  as  easily 
mistake  in  transcribing,  and  put  one  of  those 
words  for  the  other,  as  Mr.  B.  could  mistake, 
as  the  reader  has  seen  above,  in  referring  to  a 
text  for  ocKia,  where  no  such  word  exists.  I  do 
not  blame  Mr.  B.,  nor  would  I  blame  a  trans- 
criber, for  an  unintentiGnal  mistake.  Having 
noticed  Mr.  B.'s  evidence  at  length,  I  shall  now 
proceed  to  adduce  some  additional  testimony  in 
favour  of  my  view. 

I  do  not  deny  that  olko^  is  used  figuratively 
for  a  dwelling  house,  because,  in  such  cases, 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  217 

the  container  is  put  for  the  co7itained,  as  is  very 
commonly  the  case  in  our  own  language. 

The  lirst  proof  I  shall  adduce  is  from  Num. 
xvi,  27-32,  "And  Dathan  and  Abiram  came 
out,  and  stood  in  the  door  of  their  tents,  and 
their  wives  and  sons,  and  their  little  children. 
And  it  came  to  pass  that  the  earth  opened  her 
mouth  and  swallowed  them  up,  and  their  houses 
(oLKovg.y^  Swallowed  up  their  little  children  as 
part  of  their  houses. 

But  it  is  used  to  signify  infants  exclusively. 
See  Deut.  xxv,  9  ;  where  the  law  is  alluded  to 
which  required  a  brother  to  take  the  widow  of 
his  deceased  brother,  and  raise  up  a  family  for, 
or  to,  his  deceased  brother.  If  he  refused  to 
comply  according  to  the  law,  then  the  widow 
was  to  loose  his  shoe,  spit  in  his  face,  and  say, 
"  So  shall  it  be  done  unto  that  man  that  will  not 
build  up  his  brother's  house  {otKov.y  But  how 
was  the  brother's  house  to  be  "  huilt  up  T'  By 
his  raising  a  family  of  children,  who  were  to  be 
esteemed  the  children  of  the  deceased  brother. 

Again,  Ruth  iv,  11,  12,  "  The  Lord  make  the 
woman  that  is  to  come  into  thine  house,  or 
dwelling  place,  like  Rachel,  and  like  Leah, 
which  two  did  build  up  the  house  {ockov)  of 
Israel.  And  let  thy  house  be  like  the  house 
(otKac)  of  Phares,  which  Tamar  bare  unto  Judah 
of  the  seed  which  the  Lord  will  give  thee  of  this 
young  woman."  How  was  the  house  of  Israel 
built  up  by  Rachel  and  by  Leah  ?  Certainly  by 
the  children  born  to  them  from  time  to  time. 
And  how  was  the  house  of  Boaz  to  become  like 


218  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

the  house  of  Phares,  but  by  the  infants  to  be 
born  to  him  by  Ruth,  and  which  are  styled  "the 
seed  of  this  young  woman  1"  One  more  example 
from  the  Old  Testament  may  be  quite  sufficient. 
Psahn  cxiii,  9,  "  He  maketh  the  barren  woman 
to  keep  house,  (oiku,)  and  to  be  a  joyful  mother 
of  children."  In  this  passage  every  mibiassed 
reader  will  see  that  the  barren  woman's  heart 
was  to  be  made  glad  by  infants  to  be  given  to 
her  by  the  Lord,  and  who  w^ere  to  constitute 
what  is  called  her  "  house'^  or  family.  Now,  to 
apply  the  metaphorical  use  of  the  word  house, 
as  an  argument  for  infant  baptism.  We  read  in 
the  New  Testament  of  the  baptism  of  Lydia 
and  her  house,  and  of  the  jailer  and  his  house, 
and  of  Stephanas  and  his  house,  or  household. 
The  question  now  is.  What  did  the  inspired 
penmen  mean  by  the  word  "  house,''''  in  the  record 
they  have  left  us  of  these  and  other  family  bap- 
tisms ?  They  were  well  acquainted  with  the 
meaning  of  the  term  in  the  Old  Testament,  as 
sometimes  signifying  children  separate  from 
their  parents,  and  little  children,  and  infants 
exclusively.  The  Jews  and  Greeks,  to  whom 
they  wrote,  attached  the  same  idea  to  the  word. 
When  the  Jews  then  read  that  Lydia  and  her 
house  [oLKo^) — the  jailer  and  his  house  [oikoq) — 
and  the  house  {otKog)  of  Stephanas,  were  bap- 
tized, what  would  they,  or  what  could  they,  un- 
derstand by  the  word  in  those  several  passages  ? 
Would  they  not  understand  it  according  to  its 
most  natural  import,  its  most  generally  received 
sense  ?  i.  e.,  a  man  or  woman's  children  by  im- 


MODE.  OF  BAPTISM.  219 

mediate  descent  or  adoption,  infants  included  ? 
But  if  the  system  of  the  Baptists  is  Scriptural, 
and  infants  are  not  to  be  baptized,  then  the 
inspired  penmen  have  used  a  word  calculated 
to  deceive  both  Jews  and  Greeks.  This  is  not  to 
be  admitted ! ! 

We  shall  now  adduce  a  few  other  texts,  from 
the  New  Testament,  on  this  point. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  where  we  find 
what  Mr.  Booth  and  Baptist  writers  generally 
call  "  the  law  of  baptism"  carried  out  in  the 
practice  of  the  apostles,  the  word  ocKog  occurs 
twenty-three  times,  and  is  always  the  word  used 
where  families  are  spoken  of  as  having  been 
baptized.  Chap,  xi,  12-14,  the  angel  said  to 
Cornelius,  "  Call  for  Simon,  whose  surname  is 
Peter,  who  shall  tell  thee  words  whereby  thou, 
and  all  thi/  house,  (ockoc,)  shall  be  saved."  See 
Acts  xvi,  15,  31,  34.  And  in  the  eighteenth 
chapter  it  is  used  in  a  way  calculated  to  show 
that  Luke  did  not  consider  it  as  much  like 
oLKLa  as  the  '■'  English  word  brothers"  is  like 
"brethren."  Seventh  and  eighth  verses,  "And 
he  departed  thence,  and  entered  into  a  certain 
man's  house  (ouua)  named  Justus,  one  that 
worshipped  God,  whose  house  {olklo)  joined 
hard  to  the  synagogue."  And  when  he  speaks 
in  the  next  verse  of  a  family,  he  drops  the  word 
which  he  had  used  twice  in  the  seventh  verse, 
and  adopts  the  word  wliich  is  used  in  all  the 
cases  \v\iQXQ  family  haptisrn  is  spoken  of.  "  And 
Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue,  be- 
lieved on  the  Lord,  with  all  his  house  {oiKog :) 


220  OBLIGATION,   SUBJECTS,  AND 

and  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed 
and  were  baptized."  In  Heb.  xi,  7,  it  is  said 
that  "  Noah  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of 
his  house,"  (ocKog.)  We  know  that  Noah  and 
his  fainily  only  are  meant  in  this  passage. 

Having  aheady  consumed  more  time  on  these 
words  than  I  could  well  spare  to  a  single  point 
in  the  controversy,  I  must  bring  this  part  of  the 
general  argument  to  a  close.  My  only  apology 
to  the  reader,  for  having  said  so  much  on  it,  is 
found  in  the  confident  air  with  which  Mr.  B. 
denounced  this  criticism  of  my  "  editor,"  as  he 
calls  him.  I  cannot  do  better  than  close  this 
article  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Taylor  :  "  The  na- 
tural import  of  the  term  oLKog,  family,  includes 
children  of  all  ages.  In  proof  I  offer  you  fifty 
examples;  li fifty  are  not  sufficient,  I  offer  a 
hundred;  if  a  hundred  is  not  sufficient,  two  hun- 
dred;  if  tioo  hundred  are  not  sufficient,  four 
hundred.  I  affirm  that  ouiog  very  often  ex- 
presses the  presence  of  infants.  Of  this  I  offer 
you  fifty  examples,  and  if  you  admit  classical 
instances, ^^y  more.  I  tell  you  also,  that  some- 
what more  than  three  hundred  instances  have 
been  examined,  and  have  proved  perfectly  satis- 
factory."— Concluding  Facts,  &c.,  pp.  13,  14. 

The  intelligent  reader  can  now  judge  whether 
I  have  built  upon  "  mere  presumption,^^  as  Mr.  B. 
says  I  have,  (in  maintaining  "  infant  baptism" 
from  the  cases  of  household  or  family  baptism 
recorded  in  the  oracles  of  God,)  or  whether  I 
have  built  upon  the  solid  foundation  of  immutable 
truth  and  incontrovertible  facts.    To  all,  to  every 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  221 

candid  parent  in  the  land,  I  would  address  my- 
self, and  say,  "  Your'^  children's  ^''advocate  must 
be  yours.-' 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  review  of  Mr.  B.'s 
letters  relative  to  the  "  mode  of  baptism,"  allow 
me  a  remark  upon  the  closing  paragraph  of  his 
eleventh  letter.  He  says,  "  I  will  not  sum  up 
what  I  have  written,  lest  you  should  think  of 
my  summary  as  I  do  of  yours."  This  is  in 
keeping  with  his  first  reason,  for  not  being  will- 
ing to  engage  in  an  oral  discussion  with  me. 
If  he  had  summed  up  what  he  had  said  in  his 
letters,  his  readers  could  have  seen  more  easily 
how  small  a  portion  of  my  argument  he  had 
even  attempted  to  answer.  But  I  forget  myself 
when  I  talk  about  arguments  for  Pedobaptist 
views.  Mr.  B.  says,  "  there  are  none  in  the  wide 
compass  of  creation.''''  But  our  readers  will  not 
believe  this.  They  will  give  the  word  of  God 
its  plain,  unsophisticated  meaning,  when  their 
sight  is  not  obscured  by  the  dust  raised  by 
those  who  "  darken  counsel."  And  knowing, 
as  the  public  do,  that  the  term  children  means 
infants  as  well  as  larger  children  ;  and  know- 
ing also,  that  in  any  given  district  of  country 
a  majority  of  families  have  infants  or  young 
children  in  them,  they  naturally  conclude  that 
there  must  have  been  infants  in  some  of  those 
families  baptized  by  the  apostles. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  some  things 
in  the  remaining  ten  letters,  in  which  Mr.  B. 
notices  the  "  mode  of  baptism." 

He  begins,  on  page  51,  with  the  same  fancy 


222  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

(■which  we  replied  to  in  the  former  argument) 
about  the  distinction  between  moral  and  positive 
institutions,  and  the  explicit  and  ^'minutely  de- 
fined''^ directions  for  the  observance  of  the  latter. 
He  says,  "  To  me  it  is  most  obvious  that  a 
positive  institution  must  be  minutely  defined  by 
the  lawgiver,  and  obeyed  to  the  very  letter  by 
the  subject,  or  else  it  can  be  of  no  service  what- 
ever." Observe,  reader  !  "  minutely  defined.''^ 
He  refers  to  Leviticus  xiv,  where  the  ceremony 
of  cleansing  a  leper  is  detailed.  Why  did  he 
not  quote  a  little  more  of  the  ceremon)'  than  the 
"  dipping  of  the  finger  of  the  priest"  in  the  oil  ? 
If  he  had,  the  reader  would  have  seen  a  case 
corroborating  our  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism. 
For,  although .  the  leprous  man  washed  his 
clothes  and  his  person  in  water  before  he  was 
presented  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the 
congregation,  yet  this  he  did  himself  in  pi'ivate; 
but  when  the  priest,  the  minister  of  God, 
went  to  perform  the  purification,  or  cleansing 
of  the  leper,  both  the  blood  and  oil  wkre 
sprinkled,  and  in  the  same  manner  was  a 
leprous  house  to  be  cleansed.  See  verses  6-9, 
II,  16,  19,51. 

As  I  had  asked  for  "  detailed,  explicit  direc- 
tions about  the  manner  of  performing  the  positive 
institutes^''  of  circumcision  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, Mr.  B.  seems  to  feel  bound  to  give  them, 
and  sets  himself  at  work  to  furnish  the  explicit 
directions  in  both  those  cases.  On  the  institute 
of  circumcision,  he  says,  "  Read  Gen.  xvii,  11. 
I  hope  you  will  not  suppose  that  any  thing  would 


MODE   OF   BAPTISM.  233 

have  passed  for  circumcision,  except  what  is 
there  required."  I  wish  Mr.  B.  had  more  fre- 
quently given  the  icords  of  the  passages  he 
refers  to,  and  this  he  might  have  done  (by- 
leaving  out  so?ne  of  his  many  complaints)  with- 
out increasing  the  number  of  pages  in  his  reply. 
Then  his  letters  would  have  had  in  them  fewer 
of  the  loards  of  man,  and  more  of  the  words  of 
God.  This  by  the  way.  As  he  did  not  give 
the  reader  the  loords  of  the  law  of  circumcision, 
I  shall  have  to  do  it;  here  they  are  :  "And  ye 
shall  circunwise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskih  ;  and 
it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me 
and  you."  Here  are  what  he  calls  "  explicit 
directions,''^  a  "  minutely  defined^'^  positive  insti- 
tute. Does  the  reader  see  any  explicitness  in 
the  directions  ?  Do  they  say  loJio  is  to  perform 
the  rite?  Perhaps  Mr.  B.  ^Y\\\  say  the  father 
was  to  be  priest  in  the  case.  Very  good.  Then 
none  other  was  qualified  to  perform  it,  for  he 
says,  "  the  law  must  be  obeyed  to  the  very  letter ;^^ 
but  then  this  will  be  opposed  to  \\iQ  facts.  For 
although  Abraham  performed  the  rite  for  Ish- 
mael  and  the  men  of  his  house,  verse  23,  yet  it 
is  evident  from  verse  24  that  he  was  not  the 
operator  in  his  own  case.  It  is  again  far  more 
evident,  from  Exod.  iv,  25,  and  Luke  i,  59,  that 
neither  Moses  nor  Zacharias  performed  the  rite 
upon  their  sons,  although  the  fathers  were  pre- 
sent in  each  case.  I"  suppose,  candid  reader, 
you  will  hardly  receive  views  that  contradict 
facts.  So  it  seems  this  law  does  not  "  minutely 
define"  v:ho  was  to  be  the  operator  in  keeping 


224  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

the  law  of  circumcision.  I  ask  again,  With 
what  kind  of  instrument  was  the  rite  to  be  per- 
formed ?  Was  it  a  knife  ?  Perhaps  I  shall  be 
told  it  was.  But  then,  a  knife  could  not  have 
been  necessary  to  the  valid  performance  of  the 
rite,  for  the  wife  of  Moses  performed  the  rite 
upon  her  son' with  a  "  sharp  stone,^^  Exod.  iv,  25. 
I  ask  again.  Where  was  the  rite  to  be  performed, 
and  at  what  time  of  the  day  or  night  ?  The  law 
does  not  specify ;  Ishmael  received  the  rite  in 
his  father's  house  ;  Moses's  son  received  it  at 
a?i  inn,  and  the  people  of  Israel  \\^re  circum- 
cised in  the  camp.  Josh,  v,  8.  Now,  I  ask  the 
candid  reader,  what  has  become  of  Mr.  B.'s 
"  minutely  defined,''^  "  explicit  directions,'''  of  the 
law  of  the  positive  institute  of  circumcision  ? 
They  have  vanished  out  of  sight,  and  I  incline 
to  think  you  will  not  be  able  to  discern  them 
again,  without  the  aid  of  Mr.  B.'s  microscopic 
glasses.  But  let  us  examine  a  little  his  "  expli- 
cit directions''^  about  the  Lord's  supper.  Page  52, 
he  says,  "  You  inquire,  also,  whether  the  Scrip- 
tures give  specific  directions  about  the  manner 
of  attending  to  the  Lord's  supper.  I  answer, 
Yes,  very  explicit.  Read  1  Cor.  xi,  23  to  26,  and 
you  will  see  such  a  description  as  can  leave  us 
at  no  loss  whatever  on  the  subject."  In  this 
case,  also,  he  does  not  favour  us  with  the  words 
that  contain  the  "very  explicit'"  directions.  Here 
they  are,  from  St.  Paul :  "  For  I  have  received 
of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you, 
that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which 
he  was    betrayed,  took  bread :    and  when  he 


MODE   OF  BAPTI&M.  225 

had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take, 
eat ;  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  you  : 
this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  x\fter  the  same 
manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he  had 
supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament 
in  my  blood :  this  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it, 
in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat 
this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the 
Lord's  death  till  he  come."  Does  the  reader 
see  any  "  very  explicit  directions'''  here  ?  Does 
this  passage  specify  the  posture  in  which  we  are 
to  receive  the  supper  1  No  :  hence  some  take 
it  kneeling^  some  sitting,  and  others  standing. 
Does  it  specify  the  kind  of  bread  to  be  used, 
whether  leavened  or  unleavened,  whether  wheat 
or  some  other  kind  ?  I  answer.  No.  Does  it 
specify  what  kind  of  wine  is  to  be  used,  whether 
red  or  Avhite,  fermented,  or  unfermented  wine  ? 
The  reader  knows  it  does  not.  Does  it  specify 
the  quantity  of  each  that  is  to  be  used  by  the 
communicant  ?  I  answer  again.  It  does  not. 
And  yet  our  Lord  and  his  apostle  have  said, 
*'  This  do."  The  simple  fact,  that  bread  and 
wine  are  to  be  taken,  in  remembrance  of  Christ, 
is  all  the  specification  there  is  in  the  passage. 
Water  is  to  be  applied  to  the  subject  in  the 
institute  of  baptism,  and  bread  and  wine  are  to 
be  used  in  the  Lord's  supper.  So  that  Mr.  B.'s 
"  specified  directions,"  "  minutely  defined,"  turn 
out  to  be  of  the  same  character  with  his  "  ex- 
press warrant,"  his  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  for 
female  communion.  I  remark,  by  the  way,  if 
the  Baptists  were  never  to  immerse  any  person 
15 


226  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

until  they  find  in  the  "  law  of  baptism,"  as  they 
call  it,  "  minutely  defined  directions'''  for  the  ob- 
servance of  the  rite,  we  should  soon  have  an 
end  to  baptism  by  immersion.  But  when  they 
are  pressed  here,  they  say  the  Scriptures  know 
nothing  for  baptism  but  *'  believers'  immersion  ;" 
and  when  you  demand  the  proof,  they  fly  to  the 
word  baptize,  and  tell  you  gravely  that  the  "  eoc- 
plicit  directions'^  are  all  in  that  ivord.  They  take 
care,  however,  not  to  go  to  the  original  meaning 
of  dei-nvov^  the  word  used,  1  Cor.  xi,  20,  for  the 
supper:  because  that  signifies  not  simply  a 
meal,  but  was  used  for  the  principal  meal 
among  the  Greeks.  They  know  there  is  no 
consistency  in  crying  out  for  much  water  in  one 
sacrament,  and  being  content  to  consider  the 
law  of  the  other  sacrament  fully  complied  with, 
in  eating  a  small  jyiece  of  bread  and  tasting  wine. 
We  are  told  by  a  certain  Baptist  writer,  who 
saw  the  difficulty  here  hinted  at,  "  It  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  take  much  bread  and  wine  in  the 
Lord's  supper,  in  order  to  comply  with  the 
command,  '  Do  this,'  because  the  action  is  the 
same,  in  eating,  whether  we  eat  little  or  much." 
I  answer,  In  baptism  it  is  not  necessary  to  use 
much  water,  because  the  clement  is  the  same, 
"whether  we  use  little  or  much ;  unless,  indeed, 
it  can  be  shown  that  there  is  a  charm  in  the 
elements  used  in  the  sacraments.  If  this  can 
be  shown,  then  the  larger  the  quantity  used  in 
either  the  better.  I  suppose,  however,  this  will 
not  be  attempted,  especially  by  those  who  profess 
to  be  so  much  afraid  of  encouraging  pop?Vt  errors. 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  227 

It  might,  we  think,  be  easily  shown  that, 
according  to  the  position  laid  down  by  Mr.  B. 
relative  to  ^^ positive  institutes'^  and  the  neces- 
sity of  a  literal  compliance  icith  every  circumstance 
connected  with  their  institution,  no  denomina- 
tion  of  Christians,  the  Baptists  not  excepted, 
do  at  this  day  properly  observe  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  supper.  1.  It  was  instituted  at 
night.  2.  Only  men  were  present  at  it.  3.  Un- 
leavened bread  doubtless  was  used,  because  the 
Jews  kept  no  other  kind  in  their  houses  at  the 
time  of  the  passover.  4.  It  was  celebrated  in 
an  upper  room.  5.  It  was  celebrated  at  a  par- 
ticular time  of  the  year,  &c.  Now^  Mr.  B.  says, 
"  A  positive  institute  must  be  minutely  defined 
by  the  lawgiver,  and  obeyed  to  the  very  letter 
by  the  subject,  or  else  it  can  be  of  no  service 
Avhatever."  This,  the  reader  will  observe, 
stands  opposed  to  Mr.  B.'s  ov^^n  practice,  in 
the  observance  of  the  sacrament  of  the  supper. 
This  literal  conformity  he  did  not  intend  should 
be  pressed  against  his  own  practice.  He  only 
mentioned  it  in  connection  v.'ith  circumcision 
and  the  Lord's  supper,  because,  in  my  former 
argument,  I  had  placed  those  cases  against  his 
theory.  So  I  return  to  the  gentleman  one  of 
the  many  compliments  of  his  Letters,  "  The 
legs  of  the  lame  are  not  equal." 

Mr.  B.  repeats  a  part  of  what  he  said  in  his 
Strictures  and  Sermon  about  King  James,  the 
bishops,  and  translators,  and  says,  "  The  pre- 
sent version,  with  all  its  defects,  is  against 
sprinkling.''''     And  adds,  "  I  only  complain  that 


228  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

it  is  not  more  against  sprinkling  than  it  is."  As 
the  Baptists  have  Avithdrawn  from  the  Ameri- 
can Bible  Society,  because  the  board  would  not 
appropriate  funds  to  make  a  different  translation 
in  a  foreign  tongue  from  the  common  version,  I 
suppose  they  will  soon  have  a  version  of  their 
own,  and  this  gentleman  may  then  be  suited. 
It  is  due  to  many  of  the  liberal  minded  Baptists, 
however,  to  say,  that  they  disapprove  of  this 
measure.  I  suppose  they  think  well  of  the 
"  common  version,"  as  did  the  learned  Drs. 
Middleton  and  Doddridge,  and  Dr.  .John  Taylor 
of  Norwich,  although  he  held  a  different  creed 
from  that  held  by  the  bishops. 

I  made  no  charge  against  Mr.  B.  relative  to 
the  translators  and  bishops  which  is  not  fully 
sustained  by  his  own  statements.  He  repre- 
sented, in  the  Sermon,  page  28,  that  the  trans- 
lators "  were  so  fully  convinced  that  the  Greek 
verb  haptizo  ought  to  be  translated  immerse,  that 
we  should  have  had  it  immerse  in  our  version, 
but  for  the  interposition  of  the  bishops."  In  the 
Strictures,  page  13,  he  says,  "But  our  trans- 
lators being  all  opposed  to  immersion,  it  is  no 
M'onder  they  did  not  render  the  word  into  Eng- 
lish." And  yet  he  says,  "  I  have  not  charged 
the  translators  and  bishops  with  making  a  trans- 
lation to  faA^our  sprinkling."  And  says  of  me, 
that  I  have,  in  this  case,  "  dealt  freely  in  the 
article  of  misrepresentation."  The  candid 
reader  will  be  able  to  judge,  from  his  words 
given  above,  whether  /  have  "  borne  false  wit- 
ness" against  him ;  or  whether  he  has  not  de- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  229 

nied  his  own  charge,  formerly  made  against 
those  "dead  men  ;"  '•'  If  he  is  ashamed  of  it  noio, 
it  is  luell  /"  It  would  be  well  also,  if  he  would 
examine  always  what  he  has  said,  before  he 
enters  his  flat  denial  of  things  alleged  against 
him.  It  is  unpleasant  to  me  to  be  compelled, 
in  self-defence,  thus  to  expose  the  gentleman's 
contradictions  of  his  own  statements. 

On  page  54  he  says,  that  the  reason  why  I 
have  found  it  necessary  to  preach  so  often  on 
baptism  is,  that  "the  people  have  not  learning 
and  ingenuity  enough  to  find  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing for  baptism  in  the  present  version"  of  the 
Scriptures.  And  concludes  that,  as  "  many  of 
our  people  are,  at  one  time  or  another,  uneasy 
about  baptism,  there  must  be  some  '  glorious 
uncertainty'  about  the  sprinkling  and  pouring." 
And  he  judged  this  last  sentence  so  important, 
that  it  was  necessary  to  call  attention  to  it  by 
marking  it  with  two  |l3^c=Cl|- 

It  is  true,  candid  reader,  that  some  Pedobap- 
tist  people  get  uneasy  sometimes  on  the  subject 
of  baptism  by  immersion  ;  I  have  not,  however, 
known  of  ma?ij/  cases  of  the  kind ;  and  when 
they  have  occurred,  so  far  as  my  observation 
has  extended,  their  uneasiness  has  not  arisen 
half  so  often  from  reading  the  Bible,  as  from 
having  enjoyed  the  company  or  conversation 
of  some  artful  immersionist.  And  where  our 
people  have  the  Bible,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  to 
guide  them,  and  jione  to  perplex  their  minds,  we 
hardly  ever  find  it  necessary  to  speak  of  the 
mode  of  baptism.    We  have  passed  whole  years 


230  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

in  some  places  without  preaching  one  sermon 
on  the  subject,  where  our  people  had  not  been 
exposed  to  the  "  sleight  of  men"  who  seek  on  all 
occasions  to  make  proselytes  to  opinions  about 
ceremonies,  with  more  zeal  than  to  teach  men 
how  to  "  WORSHIP  God  in  Spirit  and  in 
TRUTH  !" 

He  closes  his  twelfth  letter  with  an  anec- 
dote about  an  Indian  who  had  a  Bible  given 
him  by  a  Pedobaptist  missionary,  which  be- 
came instrumental  in  his  salvation.  The  mis- 
sionary meeting  with  the  Indian  afterward, 
proposed  to  have  water  brought  in  a  pitcher  to 
a  meeting  house,  in  order  to  baptize  the  Indian. 
The  latter  was  astonished  at  the  proposition ; 
because,  as  he  said,  the  book  told  him  "  that 
they  baptized  in  a  river,  and  where  there  was 
much  water,  and  were  buried  in  baptism." 
And  he  told  the  missionary,  "  he  must  give  him 
another  hook.''^ 

Now,  candid  reader,  this  same  Indian  story 
looks  very  much  as  if  it  vjas  made  for  effect,  and 
I  strongly  suspect  that  some  one  of  a  lighter 
skin  had  something  to  do  with  its  fabrication. 
It  may  have  ^^Esau^s  hands,^''  but  it  certainly 
"  has  JacoVs  voice,''^  and  it  may  impose  upon 
some  blind  Isaac.  Mr.  B.  says,  he  "  does  not 
vouch  for  the  truth  of  the  story."  I  judge  this 
Indian  story  to  be  of  a  piece  with  the  "  negro" 
story  which  he  tells  in  his  Letters  ;  and  the 
story  about  the  lady  who  was  visited  by  several 
ministers,  whose  husband  finally  "  concluded 
that  it  was  safest  for  her  to  be  immersed.^-     All 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  231 

such  Stories  are  but  tubs  for  the  whale.  We  could 
tell  some  story,  too,  of  an  opposite  description, 
if  we  did  not  consider  such  business  degrading 
to  the  understanding  of  the  writer,  and  an  insult 
to  the  intelligence  of  the  reader. 

But  suppose  this  "  Indian  story"  is  literally 
true,  what  then?  Is  it  not  extremely  likely  that  I 
he  had,  previously  to  seeing  the  missionary  at 
the  meeting  house,  fallen  in  with  some  wander- 
ing "  new-fight  Baptist"  in  the  "  Great  Valley," 
and  had  taken  a  lesson  or  two  from  him?  Or, 
if  it  occurred  recently,  possibly  he  may  have  met 
tuith  a  copy  of  Mr.  B.^s  Strictures,  if  any  copies 
have,  by  any  means,  reached  the  Valley  of  the 
Mississippi.  For  I  am  very  certain  that  the 
Indian,  reading  in  the  "  book"  which  the  mis- 
sionary gave  him  of  the  baptisms  of  the  jailer, 
Saul,  and  Cornelius  and  his  family,  saw  nothing 
about  either  "  a  river,"  or  "  much  water."  And 
suppose  the  missionary  did  propose  to  hav-e 
water  brought  in  "  a  pitcher^''  he  might  have 
pleaded  a  very  good  precedent  for  his  practice. 
For,  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
''  when  Laurentius  was  brought  to  the  stake  to 
suffer  martyrdom,  a  soldier  who  was  employed 
as  one  of  his  executioners  professed  to  be  con- 
verted, and  requested  baptism  from  the  hands 
of  the  martyr.  For  this  purpose  a  pitcher  of 
water  was  brought,  and  the  soldier  baptized  at 
the  place  of  execution." — See  Dr.  Wall,  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Miller.  Here  we  have  one  of 
the  "  noble  army  of  martyrs"  using  water  from 
a  pitcher  for  the  purpose  of  administering  the 


232  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

ordinance  ;  and  that,  too,  under  circumstances 
so  solemn,  that  none  would  dare  to  trifle  with 
this  ordinance  of  God.  So  much  for  Mr.  B.'s 
Indian,  pitcher,  &c. 

Mr.  B.  attempts,  page  57,  by  a  quibble,  to 
evade  what  I  had  said  about  his  translation  of 
Luther's  "  Johannes  der  Taufer."  Why  did  he 
not  deny  that  my  interpretation  was  correct,  in- 
stead of  saying  he  could  convince  my  friend, 
from  Luther's  Bible,  that  Luther  meant  John  the 
Dipper?  I  have  been  assured  by  several  Ger- 
man scholars,  and  have  found,  by  consulting  a 
large  German  and  English  Dictionary,  that  my 
former  interpretation  was  perfectly  correct. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  58,  that  the  creed  makers 
at  Westminster  came  within  one  vote  of  deciding 
in  favour  of  i?nmersion,  and  that,  but  for  the  cast- 
ing vote  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  we  should  have  had 
the  Presbyterians  contending  for  "  immersion." 
And  then  alludes  to  Mr.  Campbell's  having 
criticised  his  sermon  from  the  pulpit  for  two 
days.  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  my  province  to 
be  the  defender  of  the  venerable  men  who  com- 
posed the  Westminster  Assembly;  I  will,  how- 
ever, say,  that  Mr.  B.  has  misrepresented  them 
in  the  statement  above  given.  Neal,  in  his 
History  of  the  Puritans,  says,  that  "  the  Direc- 
tory (containing  the  baptismal  service)  passed 
the  assembly  with  great  unanimity"  Mr.  B. 
has  not  given  the  authority  upon  which  he  has 
made  his  statement.  And  for  a  full  refutation 
of  it,  I  refer  the  reader  to  Miller  on  Baptism, 
pages  147,  148 


iMODE   OF  BAPTISM.  233 

I  have  now,  candid  reader,  reached  that  point 
in  Mr.  B.'s  Letters,  page  59,  where  he  attempts 
to  vindicate  himself  upon  the  charge  of  having 
mutilated  the  icritings  of  Pedohaptist  authors. 
He  begins  with  Dr.  Clarke.  After  reading  his 
vindication  of  himself,  and  his  attempt  to  show 
that  I  had  been  guilty  of  the  same  thing  which 
I  had  charged  upon  him,  I  thought,  at  first,  per- 
haps I  had  committed  some  oversight  in  the  case. 
I  accordingly  revie\ved  the  matter  as  it  stood  in 
the  Appeal,  and  compared  it  with  the  doctor's 
note  on  Rom.  vi,  4,  and  find  that  I  have  been 
guilty  of  not  quoting  all  the  doctor  has  said  in 
his  commentary  on  baptism.  I  have  cut  no 
sentence  in  two ;  and  as  for  shortening  the 
paragraph,  by  leaving  off  two  complete  sen- 
tences at  the  end  of  it,  that  did  not  in  any  mea- 
sure affect  the  argument,  or  the  sense  of  the 
note.  What  I  complained  of  in  Mr.  B.  was, 
that  he  had  given  Dr.  Clarke  as  a  witness  to 
prove  immersion  as  the  exclusive  mode,  and  that 
BAPTizo  means  to  immerse,  and  nothing  else; 
and  that,  in  attempting  to  make  this  to  appear, 
he  had  cut  one  of  the  doctor's  sentences  in  two, 
by  which  a  different  sense  was  given  to  the  note 
than  the  reader  would  have  received  in  reading 
the  whole  of  that  part  of  the  note  that  referred 
to  the  subject  of  baptism.  Mr.  B.  seems  deter- 
mined now  to  make  amends  for  having  given 
but  part  of  a  sentence  in  his  Strictures.  He 
says,  "  I  will  here  give  the  whole  sentence^''  &c. ; 
he  then  proceeds,  and  quotes,  not  a  whole  sen- 
tence  only,  but  jive  sentences.     I  suppose  he 


234  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

thought  he  had  as  well  give  the  reader  the 
whole,  as  /  had  already  given  all  that  loas  mate- 
rial to  the  question.  He  says,  on  the  subject  of 
diAdding  the  sentence,  and  giving  part  of  it  as 
though  it  were  the  whole,  "  As  to  using  a  period, 
I  could  not  close  the  sentence  without  it ;  and 
I  hope  you'  will  not  require  a  man  to  quote  all 
that  another  writer  says,  in  order  to  avoid  muti- 
latingy  I  do  not  expect  a  man  who  quotes  a 
writer  to  give  all  he  says,  but  I  do  expect  that 
he  shall  give  enough  truly  to  represent  the  views 
of  the  author.  But  this  gentleman  could  not 
close  the  sentence  without  a  period.  What  he 
quoted  was  not  a  sentence,  and,  therefore,  ought 
not  to  have  been  closed.  Surely,  as  this  gentle- 
man is  a  teacher,  he  knows  that  a  quotation  can 
be  finished  as  well  with  a  colon,  semicolon,  or 
comma,  as  with  a  period.  I  ask  now  again, 
Does  Dr.  Clarke's  note  prove  that  to  immerse 
is  the  only  sense  of  haptizo  1  for  this  is  the  point 
that  he  was  brought  by  Mr.  B.  to  prove,  Strictures, 
page  15.  His  words  are,  "But  this  (baptizo) 
is  an  obstinate  word.  It  has  but  one  meaning — 
these  learned  men  knew  it — and  their  candour 
forced  them  to  acknowledge  it."  I  boldly  affirm 
that  they  never  did  acknowledge  it.  Dr.  C.'s 
language  with  regard  to  this  word  is,  Matt,  iii, 
6,  "  Were  the  people  dipped  or  sprinkled  ?  for 
it  is  CERTAIN  bapto  and  baptizo  mean  both." 

Mr.  B.  may  write  as  many  explanations  and 
vindications  as  he  pleases,  but  while  his 
Strictures  exist,  they  will  fully  sustain  all 
that  I  have  said  of  him,  on  this  case,  in  my 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  235 

Appeal,  to  which  T  beg  leave  to  refer  the 
reader. 

As  it  regards  what  the  gentleman  says  about 
"  confessmg  my  folly,  and  asking  forgiveness,^^ 
and  about  his  "  being  one  of  the  first  to  forgive 
me,  in  the  event  of  my  asking  forgiveness,"  &c., 
I  would  only  observe,  it  is  a  feature  of  "  mv 
creed"  that  confession  is  a  part  of  repentance, 
and  that  conviction  alioays  precedes  it.  Hence, 
for  the  want  of  conviction  that  I  have  done  any 
wrong  in  the  premises,  I  cannot  repent  or  ask 
pardon.  The  conviction  I  have  at  present  is, 
that  Mr.  B.  deserved  all  he  got  in  my  first  argu- 
ment, and  that  he  is  now  desirous  of  getting  out 
of  the  dilemma  in  the  best  way  he  can,  under 
cover  of  the  dust  raised  by  him  in  his  Letters. 
I  invite  any  candid  man  to  take  his  Strictures 
and  compare  them  wdtli  what  I  have  said,  for 
proof  of  the  above.  See  Strictures,  pp.  13-15  ; 
Appeal,  from  page  104  to  111. 

He  next  attempts  to  clear  himself  from  the 
charge  with  regard  to  Mr.  Wesley,  page  61,  and 
begins  by  confessing  that  he  "  had,  in  mistake, 
put  Dr.  Doddridge's  words  into  Mr.  Wesley's 
mouth  in  the  Strictures  ;  but  that  in  his  Sermon 
he  had  given  the  quotation  exact."  I  ask.  Does 
that  prove  the  point  he  had  undertaken  to  make 
out?  He  had  asserted  that  Mr.  Wesley  ^^pre- 
ferred immersion,^'' — ^that  "  he  had  acknowledged 
that  haptizo  had  but  one  meaning."  Whereas 
Mr.  W.  says,  "  The  greatest  scholars,  and  most 
proper  judges  in  the  matter,  testify  that  the 
original  term  (haptizo)  means  not  dipping,  but 


236  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

washing  or  cleansing."  I  ask  tlie  candid  reader, 
Is  this  an  acknowledgment  ?  What  I  complained 
of  was,  that  he  should  take  part  of  a  sentence 
from  Mr.  W.'s  Notes,  and  the  circumstances  of 
Parker's  child,  and  Mary  Welch,  from  his  Jour- 
nal, to  make  out  that  Mr.  W.  favoured  his  views  : 
and  with  Mr.  W.'s  Works  in  his  hands,  contain- 
ing positive  evidence  to  the  contrary^  he  should 
still  abuse  the  minds  of  his  readers  with  this 
partial  testimony  concerning  that  good  man's 
actual  sentiments. 

Mr.  B.  did  not  quote  Mr.  Wesley  on  Colos. 
ii,  12,  he  says,  either  in  his  printed  Sermon  or 
while  delivering  it,  "  because  he  could  see  no 
meaning  in  it."  And  he  thought  he  had  satisfied 
"  my  friend"  of  it  in  the  conversation  they  had 
after  the  sermon  was  preached.  This  gentle- 
man thinks  my  "  friend"  like  Goldsmith's  school- 
master— "  though  convinced,  he  can  argue  still." 
Now,  I  undertake  to  say  that  Mr.  B.  never  did 
eith'er  convince  or  "  vanquish''  him.  I  suppose 
he  did  not  like  to  quote  Goldsmith  correctly,  and 
say,  "  though  vanquished,  he  can  argue  still," 
lest  those  who  know  the  circumstances  of  that 
conversation  should  think  his  boasting  unau- 
thorized by  the  true  state  of  the  case. 

Mr.  B.  says,  page  63,  that  "  I  seem  to  have 
found  it  necessary  to  apologize  for  Mr.  Wesley." 
I  remark,  when  Mr.  W.  is  not  misrepresented 
he  needs  no  apologist.  And  /  blush  for  Mr.  B. 
that  he  should  make  it  necessary  for  me  to  become 
the  vindicator,  not  the  "  apologist, ^^  of  a  man 
whose  name  is  interwoven  with  that  revival  of 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  237 

the  work  of  God  which  commenced  in  the  last 
century;  and  whose  tame  shall  be  more  im- 
perishable than  the  foundations  of  empires. 
I  "apologise"  FOR  Mr.  JoH^v  Wesley  ! !  "His 
works  bear  witness  of  him."  I  only  attempted 
to  remove  the  dust  that  had  been  thrown  upon 
his  "  fair  escutcheon." 

While  I  am  upon  the  subject  of  Mr.  W.'s 
testimony,  I  would  just  observe  to  the  reader, 
that  Mr.  B.  seems  to  have  suspected  his  readers 
would  "  be  surprised  at  his  frequent  references 
to  Mr.  W.,"  and  sets  about  assigning  the  reason, 
viz.,  "  that  the  large  proportion  of  the  congrega- 
tion assembled  to  hear  the  sermon  were  Meth- 
odists."— Sermon,  p.  10.  Now,  admitting  this 
statement  to  be  true,  what  Avas  to  be  gained  by 
attempting  to  prove  to  Methodists  that  Mr. 
Wesley  held  one  thing  on  the  subject  of  baptism, 
and  practised  another  ?  Was  this  the  quintes- 
sence of  politeness,  to  tell  a  congregation,  "the 
large  proportion  of  whom  were  Methodists," 
that  the  founder  of  their  sect  was  an  incon- 
sistent man,  and  that  he  held  '■'■  baptismal  regene- 
ration,^'' and  entertained,  indeed,  "  loorse  views 
on  baptism  than  Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  ?" 
And  this,  too,  from  a  gentleman  w^ho  writes 
about  '■^common  politeness T  This  I  have  written 
upon,  the  supposition  that  the  statement  is  true. 
I  now  pronounce  it  to  be  utterly  without  founda- 
tion, unless  this  gentleman  has  some  mode  of 
calculation  that  I  have  never  heard  of,  by  which 
he  can  make  it  appear  that  fifteen  or  twenty 
Methodists  are  "  the  large  proportion  of  a  con- 


238  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  Ax\D 

gregatioii"  of  several  hundred  persons.  Perhaps 
Mr.  B.  was  misinformed  about  his  auditors.  I 
am  willing  to  hope  he  was.  At  the  same  time 
I  am  afraid  he  is  vcr^  liable  to  be  imposed  upon 
by  those  who  may  imagine  they  please  him,  or 
advantage  tlieir  cause,  by  repeating  silly  tales,  or 
things  not  founded  in  fact.  Of  this  character  is 
the  silly  story  of  Mr.  Toplady,  page  80,  about 
"  Mr.  Wesley's  having  immersed  a  woman  in 
a  hogshead."  He  knows,  candid  reader,  that 
Mr.  Toplady  was  one  of  Mr.  Wesley's  bitterest 
opponents,  and  that  he  was  quite  as  much  exas- 
perated at  Mr.  W.  as  Mr.  B.  has  been  at  me. 
Even  religious  men,  under  such  circumstances, 
can  sometimes  consent  to  gratify  one  of  the 
worst  feelings  of  human  nature,  by  retailing 
marvellous  stories  about  an  opponent,  if  they  can 
only  get  some  one  else  to  endorse  them,  whether 
they  themselves  believe  them  or  not.  Mr.  Top- 
lady thought  that  sin  could  not  hurt  the  elect. 
Query,  Is  Mr.  B.  less  partial  now  to  this  gentle- 
man's views  than  formerly  ? 

His  next  attempt  is  to  show  that  he  has  not 
misrepresented  Professor  Stuart's  views,  and 
gravely  says  to  me,  "  If  you  examine  his  essay," 
&c.  Does  he  suppose  I  have  not  examined  it? 
He  knows  /  have  examined  it,  quite  sufficiently 
to  show  the  reader  that  Professor  Stuart,  so  far 
from  confirming  Mr.  Carson's  view  of  baptize, 
says  expressly,  page  100,  that  "  Mr.  Carson 
lays  down  some  very  adventurous  positions  in 
respect  to  words  having  one  meaning  only; 
which,  as  it  seems  to  me,  every  lexicon  on  earth 


.MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  239 

contradicts,  and  always  must  contradict.''''  And 
yet  Mr.  B.  persists  in  making  the  professor  a 
witness  for  immersion,  as  the  only  sense  of 
haptizo.  And  says,  page  59,  that  he  (Stuart) 
"  acknowledges,  or  rather  affirms,  that  all  lexi- 
cographers and  critics  of  an}'-  note  have  assigned 
to  it  (haptizo)  the  same  meaning  that  Carson 
does," — while  Carson,  the  reader  v/ill  observe, 
confesses  that  "  all  lexicographers  and  com- 
mentators are  against  him  in  that  opinion." — 
Carson  on  Baptism,  page  79,  as  quoted  by  Dr. 
Miller. 

Here,  according  to  Mr.  B.,  Professor  Stuart 
contradicts  Mr.  Carson.  Stuart  says,  all  lexi- 
cographers of  any  note _a^ree  with  Carson  in 
opinion ;  Carson  says,  all  lexicographers  are 
against  him  in  opinion.  Verily,  here  is  a  dis- 
crepancy !  I  beg  leave  to  refer  the  intelligent 
reader  to  my  former  argument  for  Professor 
Stuart's  views  ;  and  for  a  fuller  account  of  them, 
to  his  Essay  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 

In  every  case  which  I  have  examined  of  the 
Pedobaptist  authorities  quoted  by  Mr.  B.,  I  have 
found  the  remark  of  Peter  Edvrards  to  hold 
good,  i.  e.,  "  that  those  writers  are  made  to  con- 
cede what  they  never  meant  to  conceded 

On  page  69,  Mr.  B.  quotes  Dr.  Doddridge, 
/  think  unfairly,  in  the  words  following :  "  It 
seems  the  part  of  candour  to  confess,  that  here 
(Rom.  vi,  4)  is  an  alhision  to  the  manner  of 
baptizing  by  immersion."  This,  the  reader  will 
observe,  he  makes  a  full  sentence,  putting  a 
period  in  the  place  where  the  doctor  has  a 


240  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

comma.  But  the  gentleman  says,  "  he  cannot 
close  a  sentence  ivithout  a  period^  Then  surely 
he  should  not  close  it  at  all  until  he  has  given 
the  whole,  especially  if  leaving  out  a  part  mars 
the  sense. 

The  doctor's  words  are,  "  It  seems  the  part 
of  candour' to  confess,  that  here  is  an  allusion 
to  the  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion,  as 
most  usual  in  these  early  times ;  hut  that  will  not 
prove  this  particular  circumstance  to  he  essen- 
tial TO  THE  ORDINANCE."  The  reader  can 
compare  these  quotations,  and  see  whether  they 
give  the  same  idea  of  the  doctor's  views. 

When  I  deem  it  expedient,  and  have  nothing 
more  important  to  engage  my  attention,  I  may 
perhaps  be  at  the  pains  to  examine  some  others 
of  Mr.  B.'s  abused  critics.  I  have  no  doubt 
they  have  all  been  treated  pretty  much  alike. 

On  pages  65,  66,  Mr.  B.  introduces  again  the 
subject  of  "  baptismal  regeneration,"  and  has 
made  a  pitiful  attempt  to  show  his  readers  that 
Mr.  Wesley  built  infant  baptism  upon  that  doc- 
trine. Hear  him  :  "  Any  man  of  candour  and 
common  sense  must  see  that  Mr.  Wesley  held 
it,  and  built  infant  baptism  upon  it."  And  he 
adds,  "  and  besides  this  foundation,  none  other 
can  be  laid  upon  which  the  baptism  of  infants 
can  stand."  Does  not  the  reader  see  in  this 
an  attempt  to  nairow  down  the  evidence  for  infant 
baptism  to  this  single  point?  He  says,  "  I  have 
charged  Mr.  Wesley,  both  from  the  pulpit  and 
the  press,  with  advocating  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration."     Mark  that !    Is  not  this 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  241 

a  mere  blind  ?    Have  ten  intelligent  men  ever 
dreamed  of  it,  in  reading  Mr.  W.'s  treatise  of 
baptism  ?     To  take  isolated  passages  from  the 
writings  of  a  man,  wresting  them  from   their 
proper  connection,  is  not  a  fair  way  of  coming 
at  his  true  sentiments  on  any  given  point.    And 
indeed,  after  Mr.  B.  has  adduced  his  testimony 
what  does  it  prove?    That  we  are  regenerated 
by  baptism  ?    Not  at  all.     By  what,  then  ?    By 
grace.     Here  are  the  words  :  ''  By  baptism  we, 
who  were,  by  nature,  children  of  wrath,  are 
made  the  children  of  God.     And  this  regene- 
ration, which  our  church,  in  so  many  places, 
ascribes  to  baptism,  is  more  than  barely  being 
admitted  into  the  church,  though  commonly  con- 
nected therewith;  being  grafted  into  the  body 
ot  Christ  s  church,  we  are  made  the  children  of 
God  by  adoption   and  graced     He  then  adds, 
Ihis  is  grounded  on  the  plain  words  of  our 
Lord   "Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit;'  &c.,  and  quotes  the  words  of  the 
apostle,  where  he  calls  baptism  "  the  washing 
of  regeneration."  He  then  adds,  "  Nor  does  she 
(the  church)  ascribe  it  to  the  outward  washing,, 
but  to  the  mward  graced  &c.     Query,  Has  Mr 
Broaddus  any  method  by  which  people  can  be 
regenerated,  and  made  children  of  God,  other 
than  "  by  inward  grace .?"     Mr.  W.,  in  his  ser- 
mon on  the  "  new  birth,"  after  quoting  the  ques- 
tions and  answers  in  the  Church  Catechism, 
says,  "  Nothing,  therefore,  is  plainer  than  that, 
according  to  the  Church  of  England,  baptism 
IS  NOT  THE  NEW  BIRTH."     I  refer  the  reader 
16 


242      OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

to  his  Sermons  and  Treatise  on  Baptism,  for 
further  evidence  that  Mr.  B.,  in  charging  Mr. 
Wesley,  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  with 
holding  baptismal  regeneration,  has  charged  him 
falsely.  I  would  advise  him,  in  future,  to  pay- 
more  regard  to  the  ninth  commandment,  Exod. 
XX,  16,  especially  when  men  have  gone  up  to 
heaven,  and  cannot  answer  for  themselves. 

I  might  accuse  the  apostle  Peter,  in  the  very 
same  way,  with  holding  that  we  arc  "  saved  by 
baptism ;"  for  he  says,  "  The  like  figure  where- 
unto,  even  baptism  doth  also  nova  save  «a\"  But 
the  apostle  explains  himself,  and  so  does  Mr. 
Wesley.  If  the  candid  reader  will  examine 
Mr.  W.'s  Treatise  on  Baptism,  he  will  see  that 
he  rests  infant  baptism,  not  on  baptismal  rege- 
neration, (as  Mr.  B.  says  he  does,)  but  upon 
sound  reason  and  Scripture  evidence.  If  I 
could  find  a  dead  giant,  how  I  could  brandish 
my  sword  over  him  ivithout  fear ! ! !  "I  have 
CHARGED  Mr.  Wesley  from  the  pulpit  and  the 


press 


f" 


Who  is  this  "giant  warrior,"  that 


"  aims  his  blows"  at  the  high  and  the  low,  and 
striding  along,  recklessly  treads  alike  upon  the 
feelings  of  the  living,  and  the  ashes  of  the 
"  mighty  dead  ?" 

But  Mr.  B.  says,  the  public  w^ant  light  on  the 
subject  of  Methodist  views  of  baptism.  Does 
he  mean  the  community  at  large  ?  or  does  he 
mean  the  Baptist  public  ?  So?ne  of  them,  at  leasts 
had  better  use  the  light  they  already  have,  before 
they  "  call  for  more"  with  regard  to  our  views. 
Some  of  them  have  refused  to  read  the  Appeal 


:\10DE   OF   BAPTISM.  243 

M'hen  it  was  offered  them  gratuitously.  It  would 
surely  be  of  no  avail  to  such,  however  plainly 
and  full}/  I  might  answer  on  this  subject. 

I  am  not  aware  that  our  people,  or  the  '•  ruling 
powers,"  (as  this  gentleman  calls  the  ministry,) 
hold  the  doctrine  of  "  baptismal  regeneration" 
either  in  the  case  of  infants  or  adults.  The 
views  of  the  Methodists,  as  a  denomination, 
have  been  long  before  the  world  ;  for  we  have 
a  published  creed.  If  Mr.  B.'s  "  public"  want 
light  with  regard  to  our  views,  I  beg  leave  to 
refer  them  to  our  Articles  of  Religion  in  our 
Discipline,  and  to  the  "  Wesleyan  Methodist 
Catechism,"  Nos.  1,  2,3,  published  at  the  Book 
Room,  New- York. 

He  makes  an  attempt,  page  71,  to  explain 
away  the  view  I  gave  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  Red  Sea  ;  and  wall  have  it, 
that  if  water  from  the  cloud  and  the  sea  came 
on  them,  they  were  baptized  twice.  This  was 
a  baptism  of  ?/?<???,  women,  and  children;  and  for 
a  full  answer  to  Mr.  B.  relative  to  the  mode  of 
its  administration,  I  refer  the  candid  reader  to 
iny  former  argument  on  this  point.  He  is  so 
much  pleased  with  his  fancy  that  Mr.  Wesley 
and  I  disagree  in  our  viewB  of  the  condition  of 
infants,  that,  on  page  72,  he  brings  it  forward 
again.  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  add  any  thing 
to  what  I  have  said  on  that  subject  in  the  former 
part  of  this  argument. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  B.'s  remarks  on  the  Greek 
prepositions,  page  73,  I  have  but  a  single  ob- 
servation or  two  to  make.    My  criticism  on  the 


244  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

preposition  has  been  pronounced  "  perfectly 
correct"  by  a  gentleman  critically  acquainted 
with  the  Greek  language,  and  who  is  less  tjite- 
rested  in  this  controversy  than  either  Mr.  B.  or 
myself,  and  therefore  more  entitled  to  credit. 
For  we  have  seen,  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Carson, 
how  the  support  of  "  a  theory"  can  induce  a 
man  to  contradict  "  all  lexicographers  and  com- 
mentators." The  Baptists  hold  that  ice  are  to  be 
baptized  in  imitatio?i  of  Christ;  of  course,  then, 
if  we  find  any  difficulty  in  understanding  the 
meaning  of  the  prepositions  in  any  case  of 
baptism  subsequent  to  his,  it  will  be  fair  to 
refer  to  the  pattern  given  in  the  case  of  his 
baptism  for  a  solution  of  the  difficulty.  Well, 
then,  where  the  baptism  of  Christ  is  spoken  of, 
the  term  airo  is  used,  the  primary  meaning  of 
which,  according  to  Parkhurst's  Lexicon,  is 
FROM,  away  from . 

"  And  straightway  coining  up  {^cittq)  out  of  the 
water,"  Mark  i,  10.  Now,  as  Mr.  B.  will  con- 
tend for  the  primary  meaning  of  prepositions, 
let  him  lake  the  primary  meaning  of  a-o^  and 
the  evidence  for  immersion  drawn  from  the 
baptism  of  Christ  vanishes.  Instead  of  his 
emerging  from  beneath  the  water,  it  will  appear 
that  he  only  came  up  from  the  river,  which  he 
might  do,  without  having  wet  so  much  as  the 
sole  of  his  foot.  If  the  apostles  followed  the 
"  pattern  showed"  them  in  the  "  Master's"  ease, 
we  must  interpret  the  prepositions  used  in  the 
cases  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ac-. 
cording  to  the  primary  meaning  of  ano,  i.  e., 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  245 

FROM — away  from.  Tims  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive that  the  evidence  which  the  Baptists 
attempt  to  draw  from  the  preposition  in  favour 
of  immersion  is  only  a  fancy  of  theirs  to  aid  in 
the  support  of  "  a  theory." 

Mr.  B.  asks,  page  73,  "  Mr.  S.,  who  told  you 
that  Saul  of  Tarsus  and  the  family  of  Cornelius 
were  baptized  in  a  house  ?"  I  answer.  The 
words  of  St.  Luke  set  forth,  that  they  were  in 
the  house  when  the  preaching  took  place,  and 
do  not  say  that  they  went  out  of  the  house  to 
receive  baptism.  If  Mr.  B.  will  say  that  they 
did  go  out  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  baptism, 
then  it  is  not  with  me,  but  with  Idmself,  to  furnish 
the  proof  of  it.  In  Acts  ix,  17-19,  we  have  the 
case  of  Saul:  "And  x\nanias  entered  into  the 
house;  and  putting  his  hands  on  him,  &;c. — 
and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose,  and 
was  baptized.  And  when  he  had  received  meat, 
he  was  strengthened."  Now  I  say,  he  received 
baptism  in  the  house.  And  if  this  gentleman  has 
any  evidence  that  he  received  it  out  of  doors,  it 
wsuld  be  more  becoming  in  him  to  present  his 
evidence,  instead  of  asking  such  questions. 

On  page  74,  Mr.  B.  again,  the  third  time,  in- 
troduces the  case  of  Mr.  G.  of  Culpepper,  who, 
he  says,  "  baptized,  by  immersion,  seventy-Jive 
persons  in  twenty-five  minutes,  as  can  easily  be 
proved :  this  was  three  to  a  minute  ;  and  I  am 
sure  I  have  never  seen  three  sprinkled  in  one 
minute  in  my  life ;  neither  have  I  ever  heard 
of  it."  After  Mr.  B.  had  given  the  public  this 
Culpepper  case  in  his  Strictures  and  Sermon, 


246  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AXD 

I  did  hope,  for  the  credit  of  religion,  he  would 
say  no  nore  about,  it.  Here  is  the  absurd  spec- 
tacle presented  of  a  minister  of  God  administer- 
ing  one  of  the  solemn  sacraments  of  the  gospel 
against  time,  and  "several  gentlemen  of  un- 
doubted veracity  holding  their  watches  in  their 
hands,  and  declaring  this  to  be  the  result." 
This  seems  to  be  a  favourite  case  with  our 
Baptist  friends  ;  Elder  G.  as  well  as  Mr.  B. 
has  taken  occasion  to  make  use  of  it.  It  seems, 
truly,  to  have  been  aji  experiment  made  in  the 
county  of  Culpepper  for  the  benefit  of  the  Bap- 
tist cause  throughout  the  world,  in  order  to  show 
that  Peter  and  his  companions,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  could  have  dipped  the  three  thousand 
in  the  short  time  allowed  for  the  administration 
of  the  ordinance.  Before  this  case  can  be  made 
to  prove  any  thing  in  favour  of  their  cause,  it 
must  be  shown  that  the  apostles  of  our  Lord 
would  hurry,  as  Mr.  G.  did,  in  giving  the  ordi- 
nance. But  why  need  those  elders  go  all  the 
way  to  Culpepper  to  look  up  this  case  of  bap- 
tism, in  order  to  tell  the  world  how  long.it 
requires  to  give  the  ordinance  by  immersion  ? 
Have  they  never  administered  it  to  a  sufficient 
number  at  once  to  enable  them  to  form  an 
opinion  about  the  length  of  time  required?  I 
suppose  they  have  never  made  an  experiment. 
Mr.  B.  ^^  never  heard  q/"  three  being  sprinkled 
in  one  minute  /"  And  we  hope  he  never  will;  for 
Pedobaptist  ministers  do  not  perform  the  ordi- 
nances of  God  against  time.  So  much  for  his 
Culpepper  case.    He  thinks,  the  fact  that  Pedo- 


MODE  OF  BAPTISM.  247 

baptists  attempt  to  prove  that  John's  was  not 
Christian  baptism  is  sufficient  evidence  that 
they  considered  John  gave  the  ordinance  "  by 
immersion  ;"  I  have  only  to  say,  this  argument 
proves  nothing,  because  all  the  views  which 
we  take  of  the  nature  of  John's  baptism  are 
sustained  by  Robert  Hall  in  his  argument  for 
open  communion,  and  I  suppose  he  will  not  be 
suspected  of  being  influenced  by  Pedobaptist 
motives  in  this  case. 

On  page  75,  after  giving  a  caricature  of  the 
practice  of  Pedobaptists  in  administering  the 
ordinance,  he  proceeds  to  notice  the  argument 
for  pouring  in  baptism,  drawn  from  the  neces- 
sity of  a  resemblance  between  the  sign  and  the 
thing  signified.  He  attempts  to  make  out  that 
the  effects  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  the  manner  of 
its  communication,  are  to  be  represented  by 
baptism.  This  is  a  new  discovery  of  the  gentle- 
man's, by  which  he  hopes  to  evade  the  argu- 
ment. He  was  quite  contented  to  suppose  be- 
fore that  the  Spirit  was  poured  out  until  the  place 
was  filled,  and  they  were  thereby  immersed ; 
but  after  my  exploding  that  fancy  in  my  former 
argument,  he  has  of  course  to  look  out  for  some 
other  imagination  or  invention  to  help  the  cause. 
Now  he  says,  "  My  dear  sir,  I  hope  you  will 
give  up  this  fancy ;  and  be  contented  to  have 
the  effects  of  the  Spirit's  influences  represented 
by  baptism  ;"  and  asks  "if  the  effects  are  so 
partial  as  to  be  better  represented  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling  tlfan  by  immersion?"  I  answer, 
The  effects  of  the  extraordinary  influence  of  the 


248  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

Spirit  are  more  truly  represented  by  sprinkling 
than  by  immersion;  and  the  proof  is  easy.  Al- 
though we  hear  some  talk  of  the  fulness,  the 
plenitude  of  spiritual  gifts;  yet  what  says  the 
apostle  Paul  to  the  Corinthian  church?  Al- 
though they  had  all  been  baptized  with  the 
Spirit,  each  individual,  instead  of  having  a  ful- 
ness of  spiritual  gifts,  possessed  only  one;  "  For 
to  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit  the  word  of  wis- 
dom ;  to  another,  the  word  of  knowledge ;  to 
another,  faith  ;  to  another,  the  gifts  of  healing ; 
to  another,  the  working  of  miracles ;  to  another, 
prophecy ;  to  another,  discerning  of  spirits  ;  to 
another,  divers  kind  of  tongues  ;  to  another,  the 
interpretation  of  tongues  ;  but  all  these  worketh 
that  one  and  the  self-same  Spirit,  dividing  to 
every  man  severally  as  he  will."  See  1  Cor, 
xii,  8-11.  Now,  a  small  portion  of  water  would 
be  quite  sufficient  to  represent  a  single  spiritual 

He  says,  page  76,  "The  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
was  only  2i.  figurative  baptism.  I  hope  you  will 
not  suppose  that  the  Spirit  was  literally  poured 
out  from  heaven  !  That  influence  by  which  the 
disciples  were  enabled  to  speak  with  tongues 
was  altogether  an  influence  of  mind  upon  mind. 
How,  then,  can  any  material  element  ever  re- 
present the  manner  of  it  ?"  /  do  suppose  that  the 
Spirit  was  poured  out;  and  that  for  the  best  pos- 
sible reason,  viz.,  the  word  of  God  says  it  was. 
And  I  hope  never  to  ^'- figure'^  away  the  plain 
common  sense  meaning  of  the  book  of  God.  If 
I  could  not  support  my  cause  without  that,  I 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  249 

would  abandon  it  for  ever.  We  do  not  pretend 
to  explain  the  manner  in  which  mind  (as  he  has 
it)  acts  upon  mind.  We  only  implicitly  believe 
what  the  Holy  Ghost  declares,  i.  e.,  "  On  the 
Gentiles  also  (as  well  as  the  Jews)  was  poured 
OUT  the  gift  of  THE  Holy  Ghost."  And  as  it 
is  said,  "  It  fell  on  all  them  which  heard 
the  word,"  we  suppose  that  "  it  was  poured  out 
from  heaven.''^ 

This  same  matter  of  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  is  exceed- 
ingly perplexing  to  this  gentleman.  On  page  77 
he  advances  an  entirely  new  view  of  the  matter. 
He  has  discovered  now  that  there  were  none  of 
the  disciples  present  when  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
poured  out,  except  the  twelve  apostles.  He 
says,  "  You  spake  as  if  the  hundred  and  twenty 
were  in  the  room  when  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
occurred.  I  deny  it.  Read  the  last  verse  of  the 
first  chapter,  and  the  first  verse  of  the  second, 
and  you  will  see  that  none  but  the  twelve  are 
mentioned  as  being  together."  Now,  candid 
reader,  I  have  read  the  passage,  perhaps  as 
often  as  this  gentleman,  and  cannot  see  any 
such  thing;  and  how  should  I  see  it,  when  Mr. 
A.  Campbell  could  not  discover  that  there  were 
only  THE  twelve  present.  On  the  contrary, 
he  saw  a  hundred  and  twenty  present.  In  his 
debate,  page  376,  in  attempting  to  give  an  ex- 
press warrant  for  female  communion,  he  says, 
"  The  number  of  the  whole  was  about  a  hun- 
dred and  twenty,  chap,  ii,  1.  On  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  they  (the  hundred  and  twenty)  were 


250  OBLIGATION,  SUBJFXTS,  AND 

ALL  with  one  accord  in  one  placeT  How  strange 
that  two  Baptist  elders  should  difler  so  much  in 
opinion  about  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  and  each 
refer  their  readers  to  the  same  passage  for  his 
proof!  The  reader  must  take  notice,  that  they 
were  both  but  trying  to  evade  a  different  Pedo- 
baptist  argument.  The  intelligent  reader,  how- 
ever, will  conclude  that  the  word  of  God  is  not 
like  a  heathen  oracle,  that  will  give  out  one 
answer  at  one  time,  and  a  contrary  one  at  an- 
other, jVist  to  suit  the  whims  of  different  priests. 
The  passage  says  there  were  one  hundred  a7id 
twenty  when  Mr.  C.  wants  an  express  warrant 
for  female  communion  :  but  when  Mr.  B.  wants 
to  evade  the  difficulty  I  had  presented  in  the 
way  of  HIS  theory,  then  the  passage  says  there 
ivere  but  twelve  present !  This  gentleman,  how- 
ever, not  only  contradicts  Mr.  Campbell  and  me, 
but  he  contradicts  bmself  also,  as  the  reader  can 
easily  discover,  by  looking  at  his  Sermon,  page 
35,  where  he  says,  "  The  seventy,  no  doubt,  were 
present''''  at  the  baptizing.  It  is  a  great  pity  that 
a  man  who  attempts  to  support  error  should 
have  a  bad  memory,  and  should  thus  be  ex- 
posed to  the  danger  of  unsaying  at  one  time 
what  he  has  said  at  another !  Perhaps  he  will 
say,  only  the  twelve  v/ere  present  at  the  pouring 
out  of  the  Spirit,  and  that  the  seventy  came 
afterward,  to  help  with,  or  witness  the  baptizing. 
If  he  should  take  this  course,  the  reader  can 
consult  the  first  chapter  of  Acts,  from  the 
fifteenth  verse  to  the  end,  and  there  he  will 
discover,  without  the  aid  of  any  commentator, 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  251 

that     ONE     HUNDRED     AND     TWENTY    DISCIPLES 

WERE  jwesent  on  the  occasion. 

Mr.  B.  says,  that  "  the  influences  of  the  Spi- 
rit, by  which  men  are  brought  to  repent  and 
turn  to  God,  are  nowhere  in  the  Bible  called 
baptism.  I  can  never  believe  a  man  baptized 
w4th  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  Scripture  sense  of 
that  expression,  unless  he  confirms  his  preten- 
sions by  speaking  in  all  manner  of  tongues." 
Then  it  will  follow,  that  when  John  the  Baptist 
said,  "  I  baptize  you  with  water,  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  wished 
the  multitude  to  understand  they  should  receive 
the  extraordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit,  and 
have  power  to  '•'■speak  all  manner  of  tongues ;'''' 
for  Mr.  B.  will  not  admit  that  they  received  this 
baptism,  unless  the  sign  followed.  Did  ever 
any  man,  in  his  sober  senses,  suppose  that 
John  meant  the  miraculous  powers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost? 

On  page  77  he  says,  "  The  Scriptures  no- 
where speak  of  baptism  as  a  representation  of 
the  Spirit's  influences.  It  is  a  representation 
of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus."  And 
referring  to  Rom.  vi,  4,  and  Col.  ii,  12,  he  says, 
"  St.  Paul  understood  it  so."  Then  John  the 
Baptist  should  have  said  to  the  multitude.  He 
shall  be  buried  and  arise  from  the  dead,  therefore, 
I  am  come  baptizing  with  water.  Let  the 
reader  consult  John  i,  28-34,  and  he  will  dis- 
cover that  the  Baptist  gives  a  different  view  of 
this  matter  from  that  given  above  by  Mr.  B. 
He  declares  that  he  came  baptizing  with  water, 


252  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

because  the  Son  of  God  would  give  a  baptism 
of  fire  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  Christ  himself 
gives  the  same  view,  Acts  i,  5,  "  John  baptized 
with  water ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  In  Acts  xi,  15,  16,  Peter  gives 
the  same  view,  "  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the 
beginning.  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water,  but 
ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.^'  The 
reader  can  now  judge  who  is  most  to  be  credited 
in  this  case,  Mr.  B.  or  the  authorities  I  have 
quoted.  Added  to  all  this,  if  baptism  represented 
the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  how  did  it 
happen  that  the  disciples,  after  witnessing  and 
performing  thousands  of  baptisms,  were  pro- 
foundly ignorant  of  the  thing  represented  ?  For, 
up  to  the  eve  of  Christ's  crucifixion,  yea,  even 
after  he  had  been  crucified,  they  did  not  under- 
stand that  he  w^as  to  arise  from  the  dead.  See 
Mark  ix,  10,  and  John  xx,  9,  "  They  questioned 
one  with  another  what  the  rising  from  the  dead 
should  mean.  For  as  yet  they  knew  not  the 
Scripture,  that  he  must  rise  again  from  the 
dead."  But  Mr.  B.  will  have  it,  that  it  was  re- 
presented to  them  in  every  one  of  the  thousands 
of  cases  of  baptism  w^hich  they  witnessed.  Is 
it  possible  he  can  so  presume  upon  the  credulity 
of  his  readers,  as  to  suppose  that  one  in  a  thou- 
sand can  be  made  to  believe  in  this  fancy, — 
this  far-fetched  conceit,  that  baptism  represented, 
not  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  "  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  V     And  that, 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  253 

after  the  disciples  had  seen  it  represented  for  more 
than  three  years,  yet  when  Christ  spoke  to  them 
of  his  rising  from  the  dead,  they  knew  nothing 
at  all  about  it  ?  They  had  never  heard  of  this 
"figment,"  that  tells  of  the  ^^ liquid  grave,^^  and 
the  "  voatery  tomb,'''  as  it  is  quite  a  modern  inven- 
tion. 

The  sign  must  agree  icith  the  thing  signified — 
the  sign  was  water  baptism,  the  thing  signified  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit :   God  gave   the   latter  by 

"  POURING      OUT,"     "  SHEDDING      FORTH,"     &C., 

therefore  the  sign  was  given  by  pouring  the  wa- 
ter upon  the  subject  I  "  /  baptize  you  with 
water ;  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

From  ray  view  of  the  baptism  of  the  three 
thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  I  beg  leave  to 
refer  the  reader  to  the  former  argument.  /  say 
again,  as  I  said  at  hrst,  there  is  a  total  absence 
of  all  evidence  that  they  received  the  rite  by  im- 
mersion.  Mr.  B's  remarks  about  my  conceding 
any  thing  on  that  point  are  perfectly  gi-atuitous  ; 
for,  although  I  admitted  that  there  was  water 
enough  in  Jerusalem,  yet  I  said  the  public  and 
private  bathing  places  were  in  the  keeping  of 
Christ's  enemies  ;  so  that  Mr.  B.'s  thanks  for 
my  liberality  are  entirely  out  of  place. 

On  page  79  he  introduces  the  case  of  the 
jailer,  and  makes  a  very  pathetic  exclamation 
indeed  :  "  O  !  Mr.  S.,  when  shall  I  be  delivered 
from  the  mortification  ?"  (fcc.  He  says,  "  I 
could  wish,  for  the  sake  of  the  profession  to 
which   you    belong,   that  this  were  a  solitary 


254  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

case."  I  cannot  help  this  gentleman's  mortiti- 
cation.  If  he  will  persist  in  attempts  to  abuse 
the  minds  of  his  readers,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty 
to  hold  up  his  conduct  in  its  proper  colours,  that 
it  may  meet  its  merited  reprobation.  He  says, 
"  I  quoted  the  very  language  of  the  Scriptures," 
(fee.  So  he  did.  But  he  did  not  quote  enough 
of  the  language  to  give  the  true  view  of  the  case. 
Nor  has  he  now  quoted  enough.  In  the  Ser- 
mon he  quoted  from  the  29th  verse  ;  in  the  Let- 
ters from  the  25th  verse.  If  he  had  commenced 
at  the  23d  verse,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  Ap- 
peal, the  reader  would  have  been  saved  the  dan- 
ger of  being  imposed  upon  by  his  capitals  in 
his  Sermon,  and  the  italics  in  his  Letters.  He 
proposes  to  let  St.  Luke's  words  inform  the  read- 
er in  the  premises,  and  says,  "This  is  Luke's 
account  of  the  matter,  without  even  the  addition 
of  capital  letters,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  require 
no  little  ingenuity  to  find  in  all  this  any  thing 
inconsistent  Avith  the  idea  of  immersion.  Let 
us  see  :  The  jailer  first  brought  them  out.^''  Now, 
why  did  not  the  gentleman  accord  a  little  com- 
mon sense  to  his  readers,  and  leave  them  to 
judge  from  Luke's  account,  without  the  aid  of 
his  italics,  instead  of  going  on  to  repeat  certain 
of  Luke's  words,  putting  them  in  italics  ? 

I  say,  in  conclusion,  that  his  version  of  this 
matter  makes  Paul  and  Silas  a  couple  of  arch 
hypocrites ;  for  it  represents  that  they  left  the 
prison  at  midnight,  and  went  off  to  the  "  river 
Strymon,"  or  some  other  stream ;  and  yet,  when 
the  next  morning  arrived,  and  the  magistrates 


MODE  OF  BAPTIslM.  255 

sent  two  "  sergeants,  saying,  Let  these  men  go," 
they  refused  to  leave  the  jail,  stating  that  ""they 
icould  not  he  thrust  out  privately,"  and  added, 
"  Let  the  magistrates  come  themselves  and  fetch 
us  outy  And  "  the  magistrates  came  and  be- 
sought them,  and  brought  them  out,"  &c.  And 
these  are  the  men  who  left  the  prison  at  mid- 
night privately,  of  their  own  accord,  who,  now 
that  it  is  day,  need  to  be  entreated  to  leave  it 
before  they  will  consent  to  go  out !  This,  truly, 
was  rather  a  had  lesson  to  teach  their  new  con- 
verts !  But,  candid  reader,  Paul  and  Silas  were 
not  the  men  to  practise  duplicity.  Therefore, 
I  say  they  never  left  the  premises  of  the  Philip- 
piau  jail  until  the  morning,  and  the  baptizing 
took  place  ibitldn  doors,  and  not  at  the  "  river 
Strymon."  I  refer  the  reader  to  my  former  ar- 
gument on  this  case  for  a  full  answer  to  Mr.  B. 
He  begins  his  nineteenth  letter  by  saying, 
"'How  determined  must  that  man  be  'to  sup- 
port a  theory,'  who  can  undertake,  by  mere 
'  sifting,'  to  set  aside  the  plain  testimony  for 
innnersion  which  is  furnished  in  the  eunuch's 
case,"  &:c.  I  always  consider  that  '-'■  sifting'' 
in  controversy  is  better  than  "  SHiFTi>rG."  That 
li.is  gentleman  has  dealt  largely  in  the  latter,  I 
presume  the  reader  has  discovered  during  this 
examination.  "  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat  ? 
saith  th-  Lord,"  and  hovv  is  the  wheat  of  truth 
to  be  separated  from  the  chaff  of  error  without 
"  sifting  ?  '  As  it  regards  his  strong  or  jjlain  tes- 
timony for  immersion  in  the  case  of  the  eunuch's 
baptism,  it  remains  to  be  shown.     My  former 


256  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

argument  on  this  case  he  has  not  met,  as  the 
reader  can  see  by  comparing  the  Appeal,  pages 
143-147,  with  his  Letters,  pages  81,  82,  83. 

On  page  86,  Mr.  B.  gives  us  quite  a  short 
method  for  disposing  of  the  matter  in  contro-. 
versy.  He  Says,  "Now,  sir,  I  will  tell  you 
what  our  '  favourite  argument'  is — it  is  this,  the 
word  of  our  Kvig,  throughout,  is  in  favour  of 
immersion.  This  is  my  '  favourite  argument.' 
I  find  immersion  in  the  pattern ;  and  I  find  no- 
thing else  there."  This  is  begging  the  question 
with  a  witness.  Does  the  reader  see  any  ar- 
gument in  his  ^'favourite  argument .?" 

Why  did  he  not  attempt  to  answer  my  re- 
marks upon  the  "  supposed  i?nmersion''^  of  Christ  ? 
Also  my  exposition  of  Rom.  vi,  4;  and  Col.  ii, 
12?  The  view  I  took  of  their  argument  for 
immersion,  drawn  from  antiquity,  where  the 
rite  was  performed  (according  to  the  Baptist 
historian,  Robinson)  upon  naked  subjects,  both 
male  and  female,  he  passes  over  lightly,  as 
though  he  wished  to  keep  it  from  the  view  of 
his  readers. 

Being  hard  pressed  by  the  case  which  I  gave 
from  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists,  where. 
Roger  Williams  received  baptism  by  immersio-:* 
from  the  hands  of  a  layman,  who  never  had  been 
dipped  himself,  Mr.  B.,  on  page  88,  has  'iiade  a 
CONCESSION,  that,  upon  reflection,  seem  to  have 
alarmed  the  gentleman  himself,  jud>;ing  from 
what  he  wrote  immediately  after.  Here  it  is  : 
"  I  GRANT,  SIR,  THAT,  IF  A  MAN  HAS 
NOT  BEEN  IMMERSED,  HE    vIAY  IM- 


MODE    OF  BAPTISM.  257 

MERSE    OTHERS,  and    his    neglect   of 

HIS  OWN  DUTY  MAY  NOT  DISQUALIFY  HIM  FOR 
ASSISTING  OTHERS  IN  THE  DISCHARGE  OF 
THEIRS."  Now,  LET  IT  BE  KNOWN  TO  ALL 
WHOM  IT  MAY  CONCERN,  THAT,  ElDER  BrOAD- 
DUS  BEING  JUDGE,  ALL  PEDOBAPTIST  MINIS- 
TERS ARE  QUALIFIED  TO  GIVE  THE  ORDINANCE 
BY  IMMERSION  !  ! 

So  that  if  you  prefer  the  Methodists,  Pres- 
byterians, Episcopalians,  or  any  others,  to  the 
Baptists,  you  may  receive  valid  baptism,  by 
IMMERSION,  at  their  hands !  But  he  was  evi- 
dently alarmed  at  his  own  admission,  as  I  shall 
show  the  reader.  He  says,  on  the  same  page, 
"  But  I  have  always  thought  it  singular,  that 
those  who  ridicule  immersion,  &c.,  should,  after 
all,  consent  to  immerse  those  who  cannot  be 
convinced  that  sprinkling  or  pouring  is  '  the 
more  excellent  way.'"     And  asks  me,  "How, 

then,  can   YOU  CONSENT  TO  IMMERSE  ?"    "  HoW 

can  you  encourage  people  in  their  superstition  .?" 
He  then  adds,  "  On  the  last  page  of  your  'x\p- 
peal'  you  call  immersion  the  '  child  of  supersti- 
tion.' "  This  is  not  as  it  is  there  written.  I 
called  it  no  such  thing.  Why  has  he  wrested 
my  words  from  their  proper  connection  in  this 
case  ?  He  knew  that  I  was  speaking  of  bap- 
tism, performed  upon  naked  subjects.  But  he 
must  make  the  impression  that  I  considered 
immersion  superstitious  ;  and  then  adds, "  Sure- 
ly, HEREAFTER  YOU  WILL  NOT  BE  FOUND  WIL- 
LING TO  immerse;  OR  IF  YOU  SHOULD,  CAN 
ANY  CONSENT  THAT  YOU  SHOULD  IMMERSE 
17 


258  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

THEM,  WHILE  THEY  KNOW  THAT  YOU  CONSIDER 
IT     A     VIOLATION     OF    THE    WORD     OF    GOD?         I 

TROW  NOT."  I  said,  candid  reader,  above, 
that  the  gentleman  was  alarmed  at  his  own  con- 
cession. He  admits  that  /  am  qualified,  but 
hopes  nobody  will  consent  that  /  shall  immerse 
them.  But  who  told  Mr.  B.  that  I  consider  im- 
mersion a  violation  of  the  loord  of  God  ?  Where 
is  it  written  ?  He  says,  "  While  they  knoio^  I 
so  consider  it.  Why  did  he  not  give  the  proof 
of  this  allegation  ?  For  the  best  of  all  reasons  : 
he  could  not.  We  prefer  sprinkling  or  pouring 
in  baptism ;  but  we  would  rather  immerse  per- 
sons who  cannot  be  convinced  of  the  validity  of 
baptism  after  these  methods,  than  they  should 
go  where  there  is  "  no  confession  of  faith,"  and 
xohere  scarcely  any  two,  even  of  the  ministers,  agree 
in  opinion.  We  think  "  iniity  of  faith '^  and  "  the 
bond  of  peace,"  more  important  to  a  religious 
denomination,  than  the  particular  form  of  an  out- 
ward ceremony  ! 

I  have  now  reached  Mr.  B.'s  last  letter,  ipi 
which  there  are  some  things  I  intend  briefly  to 
notice.  I  have  observed  that  he  seems  to  be 
very  much  concerned  about  the  existence  of 
different  denominations  of  Christians  ;  and  says, 
"  I  think  I  am  ready  to  do  any  thing  I  can  safely 
do,  to  bring  the  scattered  flock  of  Christ  together." 
And  very  gravely  asks,  "  Will  you  do  the  same  ? 
Allow  me  to  hope  that  you  will."  Perhaps  the 
reader  is  ready  to  ask,  What  does  Mr.  B.  wish 
you  to  give  up  for  the  sake  of  union?  Why, 
gentle  reader,  he  only  modestly  asks,  that  we 


MODE   OF  BAPTISM.  259 

give  up  infant  baptism,  and  that  loe  cease  to  bap' 
tize  adults  by  pouring,  or  sprinkling,  and  adopt 
immersion.  Or  in  other  words,  that  we  shall 
ALL  BEcojiE  Baptists.  Well,  wliat  does  he 
propose  to  do  for  union  1  Just  nothing  at  ally 
but  be  a  Baptist  still ;  for  he  does  not  even  allude 
to  any  concession  to  be  made  on  his  part.  A 
kind  and  liberal  soul,  truly !  He  makes  a  pro- 
position which  contains  really  nullification  and 
consolidation,  in  order  to  union.  He  would 
nullify  both  infant  baptism  and  baptism  by  pour- 
ing;  and  then  consolidate  the  whole  Pedo- 
baptist  world  into  one  great  Baptist  church,  in 
order,  as  he  says,  '•  to  bring  the  scattered  flock 
of  Christ  together." 

It  would  be  thought,  from  what  he  has  said, 
that  those  who  reject  infant  baptism,  and  give 
the  ordinance  by  immersion,  are  a  very  united 
people — for  this,  the  reader  perceives,  is  Mr. 
B.^s  prescription  for  union.  And  so  they  are 
united,  in  two  things,  at  least ;  first,  to  oppose 
infant  baptism;  and,  second,  to  contend  for  im- 
?iiersio?i  as  the  exclusive  fnode.  Beyond  this  they 
have  few  sentiments  in  common.  The  history 
of  the  church  will  show,  that  among  those  who 
have  rejected  the  baptism  of  infants,  there  has 
been  found  error  of  all  dimensions — from  Ter- 
tuUian,  who  held  it  to  be  improper  to  baptize 
W7i//z«mec?  people,  down  to  Peter  De  Bruis,  who 
held  that  infants  could  not  be  saved,  and  there- 
fore ought  not  to  be  baptized — from  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptists,  who  held  polygamy,  and  ran 
through  the  streets  with  a  Bible  in  one  hand 


260  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  AND 

and  a  sword  in  the  other,  crying,  "  Repent  and  be 
baptized  I"  to  the  thousands  of  Europe  and  Ame- 
rica, who,  in  more  modern  times,  have  denied 
THE  DIVINITY  OF  Christ,  and  held  the  error 
of  Pelagius,  &c.  This  gentleman  will  find  it 
necessary  to  look  out  for  some  other  mode  of 
"  uniting  the  flock." 

We  go  against  all  pretejided  "  unions, ^^  and 
think  genuine  Christian  concord  may  be  main- 
tained without  consolidation.  Let  our  Baptist 
brethren  become  more  liberal  toward  other  sects, 
and  more  united  among  themselves,  and  we  shall 
have  a  better  union  of  heart  and  sentiment  than 
can  be  brought  about  by  any  such  consolidation 
of  discordant  materials  as  is  proposed  by  the 
plan  of  Mr.  B.  I  would  beg  leave  to  suggest, 
that  this  gentleman  would  do  well  to  give  the 
world  an  example  of  the  uniting  effect  of  their 
views  of  baptism,  among  themselves,  before  he 
concerns  himself  about  trying  his  plan  upon  the 
Pedobaptist  community.  True  charity  always 
begins  at  home !  He  alleges  "  that  a  very  great 
number  of  our  people  do  not  have  their  infant 
offspring  baptized,"  and  infers  therefrom  "  that 
it  is  not  deemed  a  matter  of  great  importance." 
"  A  very  great  number  of  our  people  !"  Mark 
that.  Where  do  they  live  ?  I  do  not  know  them. 
Now,  if  he  has  stated  the  truth  about  the  Metho- 
dists, it  becomes  them  to  see  to  it.  And  if  they 
DO  "  have  their  infant  offspring  baptized,"  they 
will  recollect  that  this  gentleman  has  misrepre- 
sented them  publicly  in  saying  that  "  a  very 
great  number  of  them"  neglect  this  duly. 


MODE    or  BAPTISM.  261 

On  page  88,  Mr.  B.  says  that  '*  I  consider 
immersion  a  violation  of  the  word  of  God  ;"  and 
on  page  89,  says  tliat  "  I  profess  to  have  no  ob- 
jection to  immersion."  Now  what  confidence, 
candid  reader,  can  the  public  have  in  a  contro- 
versialist who  will  thus,  to  carry  his  point, 
blow  hot  and  cold  almost  in  the  same  breath  ? 

When  he  becomes  alarmed  lest  some  "  should 
consent"'  that  /should  dip  them,  he  says,  "  While 
they  know  that  you  coxsider  it  a  violation 
OF  THE  word  of  God."  But  when  he  wishes 
to  bring  about  his  union  of  "aZZ  sincere  believers 
in  one  communion ^^  he  says,  "  You  profess  to 
have  no  objection  to  immersion — you  believe 
IT  Scriptural  baptis.m."  Does  the  intelli- 
gent reader  suppose  that  the  gentleman  will  be 
found  ingenious  enou2[h  to  reconcile  these  con- 
jlicting  statements  ?  And  yet  he  says  to  me  on 
the  very  next  page,  "  I  am  not  aware  of  misre- 
presenting your  views  in  any  instance  whatever. 
If  I  could  know  that  any  observation,  in  all  these 
letters,  sets  your  views  in  an  improper  light,  1 
would  sooner  suppress  the  whole  that  I  have 
written  than  to  publish  that  observation." 

In  conclusion,  I  remark,  I  have  observed 
throughout  his  twenty-one  "  letters"  a  continual 
disposition  manifested  to  make  profc^^-zo/i^-.  He 
commenced  by  professing  Xo  have  no  object  in 
view  "but  to  maintain  the  purity  of  our  Lord's 
institutions,"  page  4,  and  concludes  with  the 
profession  which  I  have  given  above.  Did  he 
expect  to  impose  upon  his  readers  by  confessing 
his  convictions  about  the  ordinance^  and  professing 


262  OBLIGATION,  SUBJECTS,  ETC. 

his  innocence  in  the  matter  of  misrepresentation? 
&c.  This  plan  may  succeed  with  such  as 
have  committed  their  understanding  and  judg- 
ment to  the  keeping  of  a  priest,  contented  that 
he  shall  think,  and  reason,  and  judge  for  them. 
But  I  flattet  myself,  that  amidst  the  light  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  the  intelligent  and  candid  of 
all  denominations  will  need  something  more  than 
sophistry  for  argument^  or  assumption  for  proof 
upon  so  solemn  a  subject  as  the  true  nature  of  a 
Christian  sacrament. 

This  gentleman  has,  more  than  once,  in  his 
Letters,  intimated  a  hope  that  he  might  convince 
me  of  the  correctness  of  his  views,  inviting  mc 
to  examiyie  the  Scriptures  and  his  arguments,  as 
though  he  wished  his  readers  to  suppose  I  had 
never  examined  the  subject,  and  that  by  being 
catechised  as  a  school  boy  I  might  be  led  to 
adopt  his  views  of  baptism.  This  is  one  of  the 
stratagems  by  which  he  seeks  to  convince,  not 
me,  hut  OTHERS.  I  wish  the  reader  to  under- 
stand that,  for  the  last  fifteen  years,  more  or  less, 
I  have  been  engaged  in  examining  and  "  sift' 
ing^'  by  the  Scriptures,  the  subject  of  water  bap- 
tism, and  have  been  led  to  adopt  the  conclusions 
stated  in  the  course  of  this  and  the  former  ar- 
gument. These  views  I  commend  to  the  can- 
did and  careful  examination  of  the  intelligent 
reader,  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  in  view  of 

THE    RIGHTEOUS    RETRIBUTIONS    OF    THE    LAST 


i 


■iV 


